





























































































































































































































































































































































































































































- ' ’ 

* ^ 

*2" A> . - ,,-V 

*0 ■ ’ " \V .j> 

V » k ... « / V * , *• -• . A < 

* vlxA/w < \ V « fl|\ KB /U ** I* V 



£ ^ 

♦ A A # . 

,,,.• .o° % 

o' .o r ,■■•', ■> <i 

A* .‘JTWV-, <{, 


> • • * _V 

% C° °o 

- : 

» iiH o. •* * jP v*. 

^ ^ * <c2vmzr> v *. 

* a> o J> 


* ^ % 
<^ *<r • *; * 4 6^ ^ 

* <{>. »v .»•«»„ 

•^o< • 


N v.. %. *?•’• 

0 V* £?& 




* <L l - O 

• • 0 ’ 4^ °*U ' 

^> | • • ^ ^\r t • || 

^ zmNfa\ 

9 v V-* o 7/7^0^^ % ■» ^piwiid^^« aV^a 

♦o VJ> ..■.. “V, V A? 




. *. 

*<* '*•** A 6 

> >1'^*. % .0* 



‘ <£ °V 

r / v V 

^ ^ *' 
,o^ 

C> • «jcRV\v^^ O 

* 



/ 

<V - v o ", 

S T* , . 4 <i> J? . . „ -p- 

!*» * ^ 1 ., * „ «> *0 *, ** * O 

- V v, ^ 

vp a < <$Ss\\irV'* 

* r JL* I<< O w v?^ 




« ^.r 

a v *’•"<» ° 

O V A * « T <* \ V 

a * J** w ^ v *> 1 * u 

1 v ^ ■•» */ »« ^ ^ ♦ 

<. '• • * * A 0»* V *,... 

“*♦ V / °o 

- <?* 4^ 

„ * ^WrfmtiL« o > 

.. V'^V ‘V^-V 

** ^ •>»• V A* ' 

^ '^E^?» o,v-^ * 

•V <$> • 



* *r*!"^ '0^, • 

.■J* .W»£* ^ 

■ ■tt.rS 


\ 

v<' 


• *5°.* *. 

► •« «". V „■»? * v' . 



° 1^ ^ 
<1 r 



« ^v 1 












Selly Oak Colleges Publications No. i 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


SELLY OAK COLLEGES 
CENTRAL COUNCIL PUBLICATIONS. 


Edited for the Selly Oak Colleges by 

W. FEARON HALLIDAY, 

WM. F. HARVEY, 

JOHN C. KYDD, 

NATHANIEL MICKLEM, 
HERBERT G. WOOD. 


List of the Series: 

I.—GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
By R. A. Aytoun, M.A. 

II—TOM BRYAN: FIRST WARDEN 
OF FIRCROFT. By H. G. Wood, 
M.A. and A. E. Ball, B.A. 

III.—THE GOSPEL OF JESUS IN THE 
LIGHT OF THE HISTORY OF 
RELIGION. By Albert Schweitzer, 
Dr. Theol., Dr. Med., Dr. Phil., of 
Strassbourg. [Ready shortly .] 


The Central Council of the Selly Oak Colleges publishes works by its staff, its 
old students and associates , as it deems desirable , without committing itself 
to any opinions expressed. 







































































' 



















H. J. Whitlock & Sons! 

ROBERT AYTOUN 


[Birmingham 



GOD IN THE 
OLD TESTAMENT 

STUDIES IN 

GRADUAL PERCEPTION 


BY THE I-ATE 

ROBERT ALEXANDER AYTOUN, M.A. 

%i 7 

FIRST PROFESSOR OF OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE 
AND RELIGION AT THE SELLY OAK COLLEGES. 

WITH MEMOIR 

BY 

H. G. WOOD, M.A. 


> > 



NEW '^XW YORK 
GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 


1923 


:&TV\ 


ELIZABETH, JOANNA 

ET 

ALISON AYTOUN 

EX VOTO PATRIS 


Gift 

Publish®? 

m $i 82 i 


PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY HEADLEY BROTHERS, 
INVICTA PRESS, ASHFORD, KENT. 



CONTENTS 

PAGE 


MEMOIR i-xiv 

Chapter I 
INTRODUCTION 

A. — Aim of the Book ------ g 

B. — Statement as to Critical Views Assumed - n 

1. The Growth of Old Testament Literature - u 

2. Approximate Order and Chronology of the 

Old Testament Scriptures 13 

3. Approximate dates of Epoch-making Events 

in Hebrew History - - - - - 14 


Chapter II 

PRIMITIVE ERRONEOUS CONCEPTIONS OF 
GOD—THEIR TRACES IN THE OLD 
TESTAMENT 

A. —Crude Conceptions in their Proper 


Perspective.16 

B. —Limited Conceptions of Jahveh 18 

1. Jahveh as Tribal -.18 

2. Jahveh as Territorial.20 

3. Jahveh Enthroned in the Heavens - - 22 


5 


6 


CONTENTS 


Chapter III 

PRIMITIVE ERRONEOUS CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 

( continued) 

PAGE 

A. —Materialistic Conceptions of the Nature of 

Jahveh ------- 24 

1. Anthropomorphic Ideas 24 

2. Gross Ideas related to Sacrifice - - - 24 

3. Images of Jahveh ----- 26 

4. Meaning of the name Jahveh - - - 28 

5. Jahveh—a Storm-God 3 ° 

6. The Significance of the Ark - - - - 31 

7. Jahveh—God of Battles - - - - 32 

B. —Distorted Conceptions of the Character 

of Jahveh ------ 33 

1. Jahveh Antagonistic to Foes of Israel - - 33 

2. Jahveh Vindictive ----- 34 

3. Jahveh Ruthless ----- 34 

4. Jahveh Dangerous ----- 35 

Chapter IV 

HIGHER PRE-PROPHETIC CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 

A. —Advance from Polytheism to Monolatry - 38 

B. —Belief in the Personality of God - - 41 

C. —Gradual Apprehension of the Spirituality 

of God - -- -- --42 

D. —Belief in Moral Nature of God - - - 46 

Chapter V 

FROM MONOLATRY TO MONOTHEISM 

A. —Overthrow of Pluralism in Jahveh Worship 49 

B. —Apprehension of the Supremacy and Unique¬ 

ness of Jahveh.52 



CONTENTS 


7 


Chapter VI 

_ PAGE 

REALISATION THAT GOD IS SPIRIT 

A. —From the Visible Symbol to the Unseen 

Presence ------- 62 

B. —From the Anthropomorphic to the Transcen¬ 

dent ------- 66 

C. —From the Outward and Material to the 

Inward and Spiritual 68 

Chapter VII 

THE UNIVERSALITY OF GOD 

A. —From the Local to the Universal 76 

B. —From the Land of the Living to the Regions 

Beyond -------81 

C. —From the Tribal to the Universal - - 89 

Chapter VIII 

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD 

A. —The Significance of the Righteousness of 

God ------- 94 

1. Jahveh’s demand for righteousness from His 

people . 94 

2. Jahveh’s endeavours to make His people 

righteous ------ 99 

3. The Righteousness of Jahveh’s Character and 

of His dealings ----- IO o 

B. —The Quality of the Righteousness of God - 101 

1. Righteousness as Faithfulness - 102 

2. Righteousness as Love - - - - 104 

3. Righteousness as Justice - 105 


8 


CONTENTS 


Chapter IX 

PAGK 

THE JUSTICE OF GOD 

A.— Retribution and Reward - 106 

1. According to Works and Impartial - - 106 

2. For Individuals as well as for Communities - 109 

3. Problems of Apparent Injustice - - - m 

Chapter X 

THE JUSTICE OF GOD {continued) 

A.— The Problem of Divine Justice in the 

Psalms.113 

B— The Problem of Divine Justice in Job and 

Isaiah liii.120 

Chapter XI 
THE LOVE OF GOD 

A. — The Basis and Content of the Love of God - 132 

B. —The Depth and Length of the Love of God - 138 

Chapter XII 

THE LOVE OF GOD [continued] 

A. —The Fatherhood of God - 144 

B. —The Breadth of the Love of God - - 147 

Chapter XIII 

CONCLUSION.155 

INDEX.—(a). Scripture references - 159 

(b). Other references - 162 


MEMOIR 


The use of the Old Testament in religious training is 
still a problem, both to teachers and parents. There is 
a tendency in some quarters to ignore the Old Testa¬ 
ment or to use it only as a foil to the New. This is 
unfortunate as the positive contribution of the Hebrew 
Scriptures to the maintenance of personal religion 
is far greater than such neglect or depreciation would 
suggest. In dealing with this problem we need a 
combination of critical honesty and fearlessness with a 
sense of continued indebtedness to the record of 
God’s progressive revelation. Such a union of 
criticism and devotion may be found in the present 
volume. It is the work of one who was himself a 
thoughtful, experienced and inspiring teacher. The 
manuscript was left practically complete but not 
finally revised by the author when he was taken from 
us by an early death. In many places it lacks the 
literary finish which is found in his other published 
work and which no editor can give without going 
beyond his office. With the minimum of necessary 
revision the book is now published, as a token of 
gratitude and love, by those who were Robert Aytoun’s 
students at Woodbrooke. The book itself will show 
something of his qualities as a teacher, but it is only 
fitting that the witness of the book be prefaced by some 
few particulars of his life and character. 

i 


11 


MEMOIR 


Robert Alexander Aytoun was born in Fraser¬ 
burgh, Aberdeenshire, on February 22nd, 1879, the 
son of Robert and Mary Aytoun. His mother’s maiden 
name was Laing. He belonged on his father’s side 
to an old and distinguished Scottish family which can 
trace its forebears back to Saxon times. The out¬ 
standing names on the family-list are connected 
either with military service or with literature. Andrew 
Aytoun was governor of Stirling Castle, in the time 
of King James IV. He and his son, John, fell with the 
king and the flower of Scottish nobility at Flodden Field 
in 1513. The long line of Aytouns who have been 
soldiers has been honourably closed with the name of 
Robert Aytoun’s brother Ernest, who was killed in 
the Great War. Robert himself was interested in 
things martial. When at Cambridge he joined the 
University Rifle Volunteer Corps, and became what 
was familiarly called a “ Bugshooter.” His health 
would always have unfitted him for active service, 
and he later came to doubt the lawfulness of war for a 
Christian. But he retained many of the soldier’s 
virtues, and above all, the virtue of loyalty. 

On the literary side, the most distinguished 
names in the Aytoun family are those of two poets. 
One, Sir Robert Aytoun, was Court-poet to James 
VI of Scotland and I of England, while the second 
was William Edmondstoun Aytoun, the well-known 
author of “ Lays of the Scottish Cavaliers.” 
Though Robert Aytoun was not himself a poet, 
something of this gift descended to him. He was a 
keen musician with some power of composing. To 
discuss music with him was always stimulating, and 


MEMOIR 


m 


to listen to him as he improvised on the organ or piano 
was a great delight. Perhaps the sense of harmony 
and rhythm which dwelt in him helped to determine 
his critical interests. At least he followed closely the 
metrical developments of Biblical criticism and some 
of his own technical papers, published and unpublished, 
are devoted to questions of poetic form. One of the 
most daring and suggestive of his enquiries of this 
kind was his attempt to discover Hebrew Hymns of 
the Nativity in the opening chapters of Luke's Gospel. 
The paper appeared in the Journal of Theological 
Studies for July, 1917. His work as a Biblical critic 
shows some trace of the poetic genius which appeared 
in other members of the family. 

The main branch of the Aytoun family, of which 
Robert Aytoun was the head at the time of his death, 
was descended from a younger son of Andrew Aytoun, 
—a Robert Aytoun who held the estates of Inchdairnie 
and Balgregie in Fifeshire. These family estates would 
normally have come into Robert Aytoun’s possession, 
but his father never received them as the previous 
occupier diverted them into other channels. Had 
there been an entail, Robert Aytoun would probably 
have been a Scottish laird and might never have 
been a Presbyterian minister. For himself he did not 
regret the chance that deprived him of wealth and the 
responsibility of landed property. He was prouder of 
his calling as teacher and minister of the Gospel than of 
the position he might have held as landowner in 
Fifeshire. 

His boyhood was spent south of the border. His 
father was a civil engineer, and held for some years an 


IV 


MEMOIR 


appointment at Scarborough under the corporation. In 
this capacity he was responsible for the construction of 
the main sea-wall at Scarborough and for the draining of 
the Clarence Gardens. His son’s early days were thus 
spent in Scarborough and the boy’s first schooling was 
received there. Later Mr. Aytoun moved south and his 
son, Robert, went to Tonbridge School. From Ton- 
bridge, Robert Aytoun matriculated at London, and 
then entered Aberdeen University on a Scholarship in 
1897. The winning of a further substantial scholarship 
enabled him to go to Cambridge in 1899. He went 
up to Emmanuel College in that year. The Puritan 
and Evangelical traditions of Emmanuel were con¬ 
genial to one whose mind was already drawn to the 
ministry. He naturally decided to read for the 
Theological Tripos. This brought him under the 
influence of the late Professor H M. Gwatkin, who 
did so much to broaden and illumine the study of 
Church History for many generations of Cambridge 
men. Like many others, Robert Aytoun fell under 
the spell, and much of his keen interest in Church 
History dates from his attendance at Gwatkin’s lectures, 
—an interest that was to bear fruit later in his book, 
“ The City-centres of Christianity.” His scholastic 
career was successful and happy. He became a Scholar 
of his college, and he took the theological tripos in 
1902. Having graduated, he applied for admission 
to Westminster College,—the Theological College of 
the Presbyterian Church of England, which had recently 
moved from London to Cambridge. At the time 
when Robert Aytoun entered it, Dr. Oswald Dykes 
was Principal of the College. Perhaps, the finest 


MEMOIR 


v 


side of Dykes’ influence lay in the high value he set on 
preaching. He was himself a great preacher, and he 
put high ideals before his students. Aytoun’s love 
of preaching, and care in preaching owed something 
to contact with Principal Dykes. But the chief 
formative influence in his time at Westminster was 
that of John Skinner, then Professor of Hebrew and 
Old Testament Literature and later successor to Dr. 
Dykes as Principal. Dr. Skinner strengthened all 
Aytoun’s interest in the literature and language of the 
Old Testament. But more than that, he deepened 
the fearless fidelity to truth which Aytoun carried into 
all his thought and faith thereafter. Dr. Skinner 
helped him to realise the religious significance of that 
patient endeavour after accuracy which is perhaps 
the best gift of Cambridge to her sons and daughters. 

While at Cambridge, Robert Aytoun formed the 
desire to serve abroad as a missionary, and at the close 
of his ministerial training he offered for work in China 
under the Presbyterian Board of Missions. The work 
he contemplated was connected with a missionary 
college in Amoy. If he had been able to go, he would 
have been head of the College, and engaged in work 
such as he would have loved, at once missionary and 
educational. But his application had to be refused 
on grounds of health. He was unusually tall, and had 
probably outgrown his strength. In any case, his 
heart was not strong enough for the strain of work 
abroad, and he turned his thoughts once more to the 
home-ministry. He received his licence to preach 
at Sunderland in 1906, and in the same year he went 
as assistant to Dr. John Watson (“ Ian Maclaren ) 


VI 


MEMOIR 


at Sefton Park Presbyterian Church, Liverpool. Un¬ 
happily, this association was broken by Dr. Watson’s 
death in 1907. Aytoun had full charge of the church 
in the interval that followed before Dr. Watson’s 
successor was appointed. The burden proved too 
heavy, and early in 1908, there occurred something 
in the nature of a breakdown, and Aytoun had to look 
for some work less exhausting nervously than the 
ministry of a city Church. It was in the Summer of 
1908, that a vacancy occurred on the staff at Wood- 
brooke, and Aytoun was invited to fill it. The post 
offered to him combined the duties of lecturer and 
resident tutor at Holland House,—the men’s house 
at Woodbrooke. The acceptance of this invitation 
paved the way for his marriage, since the residence 
and the position were suited to a married man. In 
September, 1908, Robert Aytoun married Dorothy 
Henderson, of London, and in the autumn, they 
settled down in the new home and to the new work. 
From the first they made their home the centre of 
quiet hospitality and friendship which many genera¬ 
tions of Woodbrookers remember it to have been. 

Woodbrooke itself made varied calls upon its 
lecturers. The house and grounds had been placed 
by Mr. George Cadbury at the disposal of a group of 
Friends for the purpose of an experiment in religious 
education. It had been opened in 1903 as a permanent 
settlement for religious and social study. It was 
more of a College than a Settlement in the accepted 
use of the term, and yet it was not an ordinary College, 
since the students might be of any age from eighteen 
to eighty, and of either sex, and might stay for any 


MEMOIR 


• • 
Vll 

length of time from a week to a year, and the lecturers 
were not bound by any examination-syllabus. These 
characteristics were involved in the nature of the 
experiment, the aim of which might be described 
briefly as the strengthening of lay-Christianity. There 
was then a great variety of need among the students 
and considerable elasticity in the programme. Under 
the leadership of Dr. J. Rendel Harris, Woodbrooke, 
while retaining much of its early delightful freedom, 
was by this time finding its main lines of study. It 
was drawing other institutions round it. Kingsmead, 
the Friends’ Foreign Missionary Association Training 
College, and Wes thill, an institution for the training 
of Sunday School Teachers and the promotion of Sunday 
School reform, had already been opened, and were send¬ 
ing their students to Woodbrooke, especially for Bible 
Study. Social studies had received an impetus from 
the starting of the Social Study Diploma at Birming¬ 
ham University, and this side of Woodbrooke interests 
was being pushed forward by the enthusiasm of 
J. St. George Heath. When Aytoun joined the staff, 
the requirements of the students were becoming 
more strictly defined, and it was soon found that his 
main work would lie in teaching the Old Testament. 
He gave occasional courses on New Testament subjects 
and he lectured regularly on early Church History 
and on Chinese Religions, but the History of Israel 
and the religion of the prophets were to be his great 
themes. 

Of the influence of Rendel Harris upon Robert 
Aytoun, it is permissible to say a word or two. Rendel 
Harris, himself a bom teacher, was able at Woodbrooke 


Vlll 


MEMOIR 


to develop teaching gifts in others. He did this 
even more by example than by counsel. Like other 
colleagues and disciples of Dr. Harris, Robert Aytoun 
learnt from him something of the secret of accom¬ 
modating his pace to men of little knowledge and of 
interesting at the same time the eager and advanced. He 
learnt also to mingle humour with theology. It was 
not a case of imitating the Doctor’s methods, but the 
atmosphere of spiritual freedom and of interest in 
persons in which the Doctor lived, enabled a responsive 
Woodbrooke lecturer to find his own liberty and his 
own best approach to the minds of his students. 
Aytoun’s lectures were marked by great clearness 
and were delivered somewhat deliberately. He took 
great pains to avoid misunderstandings and to enable 
beginners to grasp the true nature of the problems 
with which they were dealing. He had great sym¬ 
pathy with slow-moving minds, and was endlessly 
patient. At the same time the more advanced 
students found him a great inspiration and a mine 
of knowledge and wisdom. One who was associated 
with him for years in advanced class-work writes : 
“ What I should like to have said deals with his 
methods of study : those who attended his lectures 
heard the result: in the long years of private coaching 
I have learnt the previous part, the habits of mind, 
the attitude towards study and the meaning of a 
scholar’s patience and courage and integrity. It is 
not subject-matter alone he had to teach, but the better 
part, the subduing of the mind to the demands of 
Truth.” Another advanced student, a minister who 
did a good deal of work at Woodbrooke while in the 


MEMOIR 


IX 


neighbourhood, wrote to Aytoun as follows at the 
close of a Summer term. “ Many thanks for return 
of papers and for your very kind note. It is so like 
you to thank me for working with you—still you must 
know that you have done all the giving and I have 
week by week taken from your store. It has been 
such a help to me to meet you and I shall always 
think of you when I read that great New Testament 
phrase, ' in the meekness of wisdom. ’ It is such a 
joy in working with you to know that you understand 
the difficulties of a working minister and thus you 
have been able to look kindly upon my short comings.” 
The meekness of wisdom Robert Aytoun possessed in 
a pre-eminent degree, and this enabled him to appeal 
both to the simple and the learned. 

The letter just quoted emphasises Robert Aytoun\s 
power of sympathy. Naturally his experience at 
Liverpool fitted him more especially to enter into a 
minister’s difficulties. But there was not a side of 
Woodbrooke interests which he did not share. It 
is true that the Quaker atmosphere of Woodbrooke 
never induced him to abandon his clerical collar and 
did not destroy his faith in the regular paid ministry. 
But he had a keen appreciation of the Quaker tradi¬ 
tion, nevertheless, and was always concerned for the 
maintenance and development of Quakerism at, and 
through Woodbrooke. He joined gladly and help¬ 
fully in worship after the manner of Friends, and 
steadily furthered the aim of Woodbrooke to strengthen 
the Society. Somewhat similarly, he followed with a 
lively interest the work of Westhill for the reform of 
the Sunday School. In at least one course of lectures 

2 


X 


MEMOIR 


each term, he considered especially the needs of Sunday 
School teachers, and he entered readily into Mr. 
Archibald’s plans for directing the attention of min¬ 
isters to Sunday School problems. Kingsmead had 
attracted him from the first since the missionary task 
of the Church always lay close to his heart. He 
followed new developments sympathetically. When 
Fircroft was opened in 1909, as a kind of people’s 
High School, no one welcomed the experiment more 
gladly. He did not have much direct contact with 
Fircroft itself, but he was for a number of years 
President and Leader of the Adult School which met 
at Fircroft on Sundays. Here his gifts as a teacher 
were put to good use, and his loyalty to democracy 
made evident. His adult scholars still remember 
the thoroughness with which he went with them into 
their problems intellectual and practical. But perhaps 
no new development pleased him more than the found¬ 
ing of Carey Hall in 1912. Carey Hall is a College 
for women missionaries, in which the Baptist Mission¬ 
ary Society, the London Missionary Society and the 
Women’s Missionary Association of the Presbyterian 
Church of England unite. The new College had a 
three-fold appeal to him. It was missionary: it 
was a definite Interdenominational effort: and his 
own Church, the Presbyterian Church of England, was 
in it. He acted as chaplain to the College, and served 
on the Board of Studies and it would be difficult to 
say how much the new experiment owed to his 
sympathy and breadth of vision. In 1914, the 
Aytouns moved from Holland House to a house on 
the Bristol Road, opposite Woodbrooke, called 


MEMOIR 


xi 


“ Oaklands," now the men’s Hostel of Westhill. The 
move was advantageous as it gave them a more 
secluded home-life. Their eldest daughter, Elizabeth, 
was born in 1913 and seventeen months later her 
sister Joanna arrived. A third daughter, Alison, was 
born in June, 1918. 

The war years necessarily brought new demands 
and new problems. In 1915 Robert Aytoun was 
President of the Birmingham and District Free Church 
Council. The position not only involved special 
duties, but brought him into contact with many 
Churches, desiring help in the difficulties of war-time. 
With several ministers away on service connected with 
the war, a man like Robert Aytoun found frequent calls 
among Birmingham pulpits. The same year saw the 
publication of his book, “ The City-centres of Early 
Christianity,”—a fresh and suggestive survey of the 
main features of Early Church History, which put 
in a clear light the local variations in ancient Catho¬ 
licism. Later on, Aytoun gladly took up a special 
bit of war-work and became Presbyterian Chaplain to 
the First Southern General Hospital. This proved 
too exacting. His heart gave warning that he was 
overtaxing his strength. He had to relinquish the 
chaplaincy and take things very quietly. As he 
recovered his health towards the close of the war, he 
was ready for new tasks. The group of Colleges came 
through the war, but naturally not without strain. 
It was clear to the responsible leaders and especially 
to Mr. Edward Cadbury that the Colleges would need 
to consolidate their resources by closer co-operation 
and by sharing their financial burdens. Robert Aytoun, 


MEMOIR 


• • 

Xll 

• 

an intimate friend of Edward Cadbury, shared 
his views on this matter, and threw himself 
into the task of putting them into shape. The co¬ 
ordination of five practically independent institutions 
is a delicate matter. To frame a constitution at once 
acceptable and practical is in itself difficult. To 
overcome initial obstacles requires great patience 
and wisdom. Aytoun brought all his mastery of 
detail, his delight in clearness and definiteness, his 
tact and sympathy, into play to further the ideal of 
co-operation between the Selly Oak Colleges. The 
draft-constitution was his work. He became the first 
Secretary of the Central Council, and along with 
H. G. Wood was the first to be appointed to a central 
chair. He was lecturer on the Old Testament to the 
group of Colleges. It is not too much to say, that 
next to the generous and steady support of Edward 
Cadbury, the Selly Oak Colleges in the first stages of 
co-ordination owed their largest debt to the loving 
and wise service of Robert Aytoun. 

Aytoun’s worth as a scholar did not lack recogni¬ 
tion beyond the borders of Selly Oak. The present 
book is no adequate measure of his attainment or his 
promise. He * was appointed External Examiner in 
Hebrew at Birmingham University. He continued to 
examine in Church History, for entrance at his old 
College, Westminster. He was an active and honoured 
member of the Old Testament Association. His 
published papers had begun to attract attention and 
more was expected of him. But the hopes his friends 
held regarding his future as a scholar were destined to 
disappointment. In the spring of 1920, when he 


MEMOIR 


xm 

was overdone with a hard terms work, he undertook the 
one thing that proved too much. He went straight up 
from Woodbrooke to a Student Movement Bible School 
held at Ardenconnell, Row, Dumbartonshire. It ran 
from Monday, March 29th, to Thursday, April 1st. 
Though he was very tired, the place and the folk 
stimulated and revived him. His presence was one of 
the inspiring features of the conference. His lectures 
went splendidly, and he took more than his share in 
the after-dinner doings,—a most brave and joyous spirit, 
as one of the students wrote afterwards. And then as 
he was coming from this happy conference, the blow fell. 
He was walking with two men students and they had 
got about half-way to the station and were just about 
to go up rather a steep hill when he suddenly said, 
“ Slow down a bit, remember I have a heart,” and 
almost before he had spoken, he had fallen. The 
students with him were medicals and brought him back 
carefully to Ardenconnell. 

“ Mrs. Aytoun arrived on Good Friday morning, 
April 2nd, and from then onward to Sunday nth, 
he lingered, wandering at times, but often conscious 
and always cheery and uncomplaining, beautiful in 
his courtesy and thoughtfulness for others, ready 
even in his weakest moments with some little joke, 
and anxious, Mrs. Aytoun knew, that none of the 
happy holiday atmosphere of the house should be 
spoilt on his or her account. 

On Friday 9th, there was a distinct rally and the 
doctor gave the first ray of hope, but on Saturday he 
awoke weaker and on Sunday morning at 3.40 he just 
passed away quietly in his sleep. 


XIV 


MEMOIR 


The fact that Ardenconnell was a holiday home and 
that rooms were being occupied that had long been 
booked by young people for their much needed holidays, 
made it necessary that the funeral should be as soon as 
possible. 

In spite of the fact that Monday was the Spring 
holiday, all shops closed and all work suspended, the 
Ardenconnell gardens yielded their wealth of early 
Spring blossoms, daffodils, primroses and violets to 
him, together with some beautiful lilies and other 
flowers which he loved so much; and that afternoon 
at 2.30 in the little peaceful hill-side Cemetery of 
Craigendorran, he was laid to rest very quietly, only 
two men who had known him in his College days and 
two from the Bible School who were in the neighbour¬ 
hood, together with two who had nursed him and one or 
two others who loved him, being present. 

The service was conducted by the Parish Minister 
and was just what he himself would have wished, 
short and very simple. The note that ran through it 
all was the one that above all others, all those who knew 
him and loved him would have chosen;—praise for his 
full life of love and his service to the end, and for his 
final Victory/ ’ 

Robert Aytoun was happy in his death inasmuch 
as his last days were spent among students and in 
the work he loved. In this volume we would fain 
enshrine his memory and continue his work. May 
it convey to many some of the light which he saw so 
clearly in the pages of Scripture, and some of the 
inspiration by which he lived and to which he was 
so splendidly true. 


Chapter I 


INTRODUCTION 

A.—The Aim of the Book. 

The study of the record of the revelation and 
perception of God in the Old Testament leads one to 
the conviction that herein lay one of the most impor¬ 
tant elements in the preparation for the coming of 
Jesus Christ. The fact emerges in this study that 
many fore-runners, most of whom, it may be, knew 
nothing about His coming, were yet leading up to Him 
and making ready for Him and for those things for 
which He stood. 

All who caught a glimpse of God, especially such as 
caught a new glimpse, all who received even some dim 
impression of His true character and passed it on, all 
who were able to realise, even though partially and 
imperfectly, something of the Divine intentions for men, 
all who endeavoured to make themselves and their 
fellows responsive to the Divine Will and to make 
the Rule of God, as they knew it, supreme in the life of 
their nations and of its individual members,—all these, 
and many more of kindred endeavour and accom¬ 
plishment, were pioneer workers and travellers on the 
great Road to God, which Jesus completed, which 


10 


INTRODUCTION 


culminated in him,—that Road along which now a 
wayfaring man, though but unskilled and unlearned, 
may walk without danger of going astray. 

The Old Testament is full of the record of such 
pioneers and explorers into the fact of God, men who 
saw in part what Jesus saw as a whole, who guessed 
what Jesus knew, who perceived dimly what He saw 
clearly. 

Modern Biblical scholarship has made it evident that 
the revelation granted to these men, and still more 
their perception of that revelation, was for the most 
part a gradual evolutionary process. It has shown that 
there were many fluctuations and retrogressive ten¬ 
dencies (which had to be overcome), tendencies 
embodied in not a little of the Old Testament 
literature itself. But it has further made it clear 
that in spite of these backward movements the Old 
Testament writings, when dated according to the 
canons of literary and historical science, show signs 
of a slow but sure advance toward the fulness of 
our Lord’s revealing knowledge of the heart and mind 
of God. 

The purpose of the following studies is to present 
some of the more important features in the Old Testa¬ 
ment view of God in such a way as to exhibit, in their 
historic setting and development, the principal stages 
in this progressive revelation and gradual perception 
of the Most High, which culminated in that perfect 
revelation of God in Him who alone was able truly to 
say " He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.” 


INTRODUCTION 


ii 


B.— Statement as to Critical Views Assumed, 
i. The Growth of Old Testament Literature. 

The study of the Growth of the Knowledge of God as 
evidenced in the pages of the Old Testament is depen¬ 
dent on the kindred and preliminary study of the canon 
and composition of the books of the Old Testament. 
All valid Old Testament theology must be based on 
sound literary criticism. As these chapters are an 
attempt to set forth the development and progress of 
certain aspects of religious conceptions and perceptions, 
it is important that the reader should keep before him 
the relative order and chronology of the Old Testament 
books and their several sources. For the convenience 
of the general reader who has not necessarily these 
literary and chronological details in the forefront of his 
mind, we may outline the general critical position here 
assumed. Unless otherwise stated in any particular 
passage, it is that held by most conservative modem 
scholars, whose standpoint is characteristic of such a 
work as Hastings’ Bible Dictionary. 

It is assumed that the first six books, Genesis to 
Joshua, were originally one book which in its turn was 
made up of a harmony of four principal documents. 
These documents are commonly known as the Jehovistic 
or Jahvistic, the Elohistic, the Deuteronomic and the 
Priestly, which last includes what is usually called the 
Holiness Code. They are referred to respectively as 
J, E, D, P (and H). 

The Jehovistic and Elohistic documents (J and E) 
are held to have taken shape in the century before Amos 


12 


INTRODUCTION 


the first of the literary prophets ; the Deuteronomic 
document (D) shortly after Isaiah and most of it before 
the reformation under Josiah 621 b.c. ; the Holiness 
Code (H) during the early Exile (after 586 B.c.) and the 
Priestly Code and Document partly during the Exile, 
but not to have assumed its final shape until about the 
time of Ezra (? 444 B.c.). 

Isaiah, chapters xl. onwards, otherwise known as 
Second or Deutero-Isaiah, is taken as in the main 
belonging to the close of the Exile or probably rather 
later. 

Daniel is held to have been written during the Perse¬ 
cution in the time of Antiochus Ephiphanes (about 168 
b.c.) ; Zechariah ix. onwards about the same period ; 
while the Psalter is presumed to contain Psalms ranging 
in date from about 1,000 b.c., to about 150 b.c. 

It is further taken for granted that there are Exilic 
and Post-exilic passages to be found incorporated in 
some of the Pre-exilic writings, more particularly in 
Isaiah i.-xxxix. 

The following tables give the relative order and 
approximate dates of the more important of the 
inspired writings together with the dates of a few of 
the epoch-making events in the history of the Hebrew 
people. 

Some such list of dates, etc., is indispensable for the 
proper appreciation and understanding of the subject in 
hand. 


INTRODUCTION 


13 


2. Approximate Order and Chronology of the Old 
Testament Scriptures. 


I The Jehovistic and Elohistic Documents (J & E) Between 
David and Amos the first literary prophet. 

Prophets of North Israel; prophesied in the 
years before the Fall of North Israel in 
721 B.C. 


Amos 

Hosea 


Isaiah (1-39 
Micah 



Prophets of J udah; prophesied shortly 
before and for sometime after the Fall of 
North Israel in 721 b.c. 




The Deuteronomic Imbued with the teaching of Amos, 
Document (D) Hosea, Isaiah, etc. Written after 

these prophets but before Josiah’s 
Reformation 621 b.c. 


Nahum 

Zephaniah 

Habakkuk 


Later part of the seventh century. 


Jeremiah Prophesied during the last quarter of the 
seventh century and up to and after the 
destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar 
586 B.C. 


Ezekiel Prophesied from first Exile of the Judean 
(597) onwards. 

The Holiness Code (H). Lev. 17-26. Written and com¬ 
piled in Ezekiel’s time. 


< Judges 
Samuel 
Kings 


Compiled and partly written during the Exile, 
but embodying much material of earlier date. 
During the Exile many other earlier books, e.g., 
Deuteronomy and the Pre-exilic prophets were 
edited and added to. 


The Priestly Document (P). Written and compiled during 
(?) and after the Exile. 









POST-EXILIC 


14 


INTRODUCTION 


/ Haggai 1 Prophesied at close of the Exile, 520 b.c. 

Zechariah (1-8) / onwards. 

Isaiah (40-end) Second Isaiah written. A little is 

probably earlier than Haggai-Zechariah, 
some perhaps as late as Malachi. 

Obadiah(?) \ Written shortly before the coming of 
Malachi / Nehemiah 444 b.c. 

Nehemiah’s Memoirs. Written about 444 b.c. 


The Priestly Document (P) in its final form about 400 b.c. 


( 


Joel written between 444 b.c., and 333 b.c. 


Chronicles 

Ezra 

Nehemiah 


} written sometime subsequent to Nehemiah’s 
Governorship. 


Job 

Jonah 

Ecclesiastes 


\ written some time during the Greek Period 
J 333-168 B.C. 


Daniel \ Written in the late Greek-Syrian 

Zechariah (ix.-end)/ Period, about 168 b.c. 


Proverbs 

and 

Psalms 


probably cover the whole of the period from 
the Early Monarchy to the Maccabean 
Period (about 150 b.c.). 


3. Approximate dates of Epoch-making Events in Hebrew 


History. 


?I 400 -I 200 B.C. 

The Exodus. 

about 1000 b.c. 

David. 

about 850 b.c. 

Elijah and Elisha. 

721 B.C. 

Fall of North Israel. 

606 B.C. 

Fall of Nineveh and of the Assyrian 
Empire. 

597 b.c. 

First Exile of Judah. 

586 B.C. 

Second Exile of Judah, and Destruc¬ 
tion of Jerusalem. 

538 B.C. 

Advent of Cyrus and Fall of Baby¬ 
lonian Empire. 

521-520 B.C. 

Re-building of the Temple. 




444 B C - 
333 b.c. 


168 b.c. 


INTRODUCTION 15 

Re-building of the Walls of Jerusalem 
by Nehemiah. 

Advent of Alexander the Great and 
Fall of Persian Empire. 

( Desecration of Temple by Antiochus 
Epiphanes. 

Maccabean Uprising. 

First step towards Jewish Indepen¬ 
dence. 


Chapter II 


PRIMITIVE ERRONEOUS CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 
—THEIR TRACES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 

A.— Crude Conceptions in their Proper 
Perspective. 

The conceptions of God found in the Old Testament 
are far from being on the same level. Not seldom God 
is portrayed there as being very different in character 
and person from the God and Father of our Lord Jesus 
Christ. To such an extent is this the case that some of 
the early Christians, e.g., Marcion, one of the arch¬ 
heretics of the second century A.D., believed that the God 
of the Old Testament was actually a different person 
from the God of the New Testament. But although 
one finds a considerable number of such differences it 
is important to note that in most cases the con¬ 
ceptions of God which we now, in the light of the 
New Testament, recognise to be either unworthy or 
inadequate, are gradually displaced in the Old 
Testament records themselves by truer and fuller views 
of Him. We can trace the “ knowledge ” of Him 
growing from “ more to more/' the old unworthy 
notions being left behind in the light of new experience 

16 


PRIMITIVE CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 


17 


and revelation of Him. We may note further that 
this change is not in God Himself. The God of the 
old dispensation is exactly the same as the God of the 
New. The God who “ so loved the world that He 
gave His only begotten Son ” loved the world and 
every person in it in the days of the conquest of 
Canaan, when He is portrayed as seemingly vindictive 
and cruel, just as much as He did in the days of Jesus. 
What was imperfect was not God’s character, but the 
realisation of it, to which the writers of parts, at least, 
of the Old Testament had attained. They were men 
like ourselves ; they saw God ; but their vision of 
Him was somewhat distorted. A perfect mirror is 
needed before a perfect face can be reflected perfectly. 
A perfect soul was needed before God could be 
reflected perfectly, and that was one great reason 
why Jesus came. Then they saw in a glass darkly,— 
they saw in a mirror that was dimmed and flawed,— 
but now in Jesus we can see, as it were, face to face. 

It should be observed that of that which must be 
entirely repudiated in the Old Testament conception of 
God there is remarkably little. Even of crude and 
primitive ideas with regard to His nature there is not so 
much as might have been expected, and the actual 
writers and compilers of the Old Testament rarely build 
on these, even when in some cases they seem to share 
them. 

These crude ideas, where they are found, are almost 
always such as were held by the other nations of 
antiquity. They are often in themselves an advance on 
still cruder beliefs and customs, and as such seem some¬ 
times to have been the result of God’s revelation to 


i8 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


those who were feeling after Him if haply they might 
find Him. But their chief interest for us is that a study 
of them helps us to realise how far men had yet to go 
before they arrived at anything like an adequate view 
of God, and provides us with a starting-point for the 
progress in the revelation of Him indicated in the Old 
Testament. 

B.— Limited Conceptions of Jahveh. 

It has been clearly demonstrated, that the religion 
of the early Hebrews had much in common with that of 
other Semitic tribes of the Desert. Not only the out¬ 
ward forms of religion and worship, but the underlying 
bebefs were sometimes closely akin. It seems likely 
that most of these were inherited by the Hebrews from 
their ancestors, and some, perhaps, acquired or revived 
through the contact of the Israelites (during the long 
years between the Exodus and the Conquest, when the 
desert was their home) with the Midianite tribes, with 
whom Moses, and later his people, were brought into 
close and friendly relations. 

i. Jahveh as Tribal. 

Among the Semites within each desert tribe there 
was as a rule but one tribal god, who was bound up with 
his people’s existence, and who was their lord and head 
and the champion of their interests. The tribe was 
under the protection of this god, who was sometimes 
conceived of as the Blood-Kinsman of the Tribe. This 
kinship with the god was renewed from time to time 
by a covenant of blood, a species of sacrifice, wherein the 


PRIMITIVE CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 19 

god and the members of the tribe shared in the life¬ 
blood of an especially holy victim. 

The Covenant at Sinai between Jahveh and the 
Israelites appears to have been an occasion of like 
significance. It is possible that it also had the effect 
of creating or reviving a kind of blood relationship 
between the various tribes of Israel, and that it served 
to weld them into one nation. 

The tribal god was thought of as accompanying the 
tribe and bound to no particular spot, just as the 
wandering tribe had no settled abiding place ; but even 
then some one locality was believed to be especially 
sacred to him, and he was conceived of as having as his 
headquarters some awe-inspiring region such as a lofty 
mountain with gloomy gorges and mysterious heights. 

Similar beliefs with regard to Jahveh obtained 
among the people of Israel. The presence of Jahveh 
was likewise thought of as accompanying the Hebrews 
in their nomadic journeyings through the desert during 
the long period between their escape from Egypt and 

their conquest of Canaan. 

The idea of Jahveh’s having special headquarters 
in the desert likewise continued for many centuries 
after their settlement in Canaan. Sinai (Horeb) was 
thought to be Jahveh’s particular abode, the place where 
He might normally be found. It was there that He 
manifested Himself to Moses, and it was there that 
the Israelites had to come for their covenant with 
Him or, rather, His with them. 

In the time of the Judges, in the Song of Deborah, 
Jahveh was still conceived of as coming thence to the 
help of the tribes of Israel in Canaan. 


3 




20 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


Jahveh, when thou wentest forth from Seir,* 

When thou marchedst out of the field of Edom, 

The mountains dropped down at the presence of Jahveh, 
Even yon Sinai at the presence of Jahveh the God of 
Israel. 

(Judges v. 4, 5-)t 

Much later, in the account of Elijah’s flight from 
Jezebel we find that Horeb was still looked upon as the 
" Mount of God.” Elijah evidently travelled there of 
set purpose because it was the seat of Jahveh. And 
there, according to the narrative, Jahveh was mani¬ 
fested to the prophet in a very special fashion. 

2 . Jahveh as Territorial. 

After the settlement of the Hebrews in Palestine 
territorial ideas, religious and otherwise, gradually 
took the place of tribal , as they put aside their nomad 
habits and settled down as an agricultural people. 
The Canaanites, into whose land they had come, and 
the other settled Semites in the various little kingdoms 
and states of Palestine thought of their deities primarily 
as agricultural gods. These were accounted the source 
of the fertility of the several districts where they dwelt. 
The god was the baal, the lord or husband of the land. 
He was worshipped by the inhabitants of a district as 
the lord and fertiliser of that district. If people moved 
from one district to another they were thought to leave 
the sphere of influence of the baal of the old district, and 
they naturally transferred their allegiance to the god 
of the new district to which they came. Contact with 

* According to the evidence of several passages in the Old 
Testament Sinai (Horeb) was situated among the mountains of Seir. 

f Cf. also Deut. xxxiii. 2 ; Ps. lxviii. 7 ; Hab. iii. 3. 


PRIMITIVE CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 


21 


these influences in time tended to make the Israelites 
look upon Jahveh as in some sort an agricultural god 
and a nature-god. It ultimately led some of them to the 
discovery that He was the God of nature. It also had 
the effect of making them think of Him as Lord of their 
land. Israelite territory was conceived of as His pos¬ 
session, while the territory beyond the boundaries of 
their State was considered as not in His domain,— 
much in the same way that a king is king over his own 
land but is only a king by courtesy outside of his own 
kingdom ; his rule does not extend beyond his own 
land, and his subjects if they are in other lands must 
normally accept the rule of the kings in whose countries 
they may be. 

Consequently it came to be thought that Jahveh 
could be worshipped only on His own land. There is a 
curious and extreme instance of such a belief in the case 
of Naaman the Syrian, who desired to worship Jahveh 
when he returned to his own home which was far 
away from Jahveh’s land. In order to circumvent 
the difficulty, Naaman asked Elisha for two loads of 
Israelitish soil, thinking that, as this was a portion of 
Jahveh’s land, worship upon it must be efficacious 
(2 Kings v. 17). A more typical example is that of 
David, who evidently took it for granted that exile 
from Jahveh’s land meant exile from Jahveh, and the 
necessity of worshipping the god of the country to which 
he was driven. 

Cursed be they before Jahveh, he said, for they have 
driven me out this day that I should not cleave unto the 
inheritance of Jahveh, saying, Go, serve other gods. Now, 
therefore, let not my blood fall to the earth away from 
the presence of Jahveh (1 Sam. xxvi. 19, 20). 


22 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


This narrow, territorial view of Jahveh was normal 
right up to the exile, and added to the troubles of 
Judaeans who were then banished from their native 
land. It was only their experience of God during the 
exile itself which enabled the people as a whole to break 
away from this limitation in their idea of God. 

We find then the conception of Jahveh (i) as limited 
to the tribe and identified with its interests; (2) as 
limited to the country of His people. 

3. Jahveh Enthroned in the Heavens. 

There is one other conception which must be 
mentioned in this connection. These limitations, more 
particularly the latter, were not altogether essential. 
Among the Canaanites the baal tended to be identified 
with his land. Jahveh, however, was thought of not 
only as dwelling in His land but also as having His 
abode in the heavens , the heavens being of course the 
firmament. Jacob's ladder, on which the angels of God 
ascended and descended, reached from earth to heaven 
(Gen. xxviii. 12). The angel of God called to Hagar 
out of heaven (Gen. xxi. 17). Jahveh is called the God 
of heaven (Gen. xxiv. 7) by Abraham when speaking to 
his servant. It is possible that the seventh and eighth 
century narrators of these stories may be responsible 
for this thought with regard to Jahveh's dwelling-place. 
The expressions are, however, fairly common, and 
though the thought may not be primitive and may not 
have been widely recognised, yet it seems to be 
no novelty in the Genesis-stories. The xviii. Psalm, 
which is probably older than the present form of the 


PRIMITIVE CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 


23 


Genesis stories, has this same thought of Jahveh in 
Heaven very powerfully expressed. 

He bowed the Heavens also and came down: 

And thick darkness was under his feet. 

And he rode upon a cherub and did fly: 

Yea, he flew swiftly on the wings of the wind. 

. . .Jahveh also thundered in the Heavens. 

(Ps. xviii. 9, 10, 13.) 

The thought, it is true, was probably, in part at least, 
derived from what seems to have been a very primitive 
idea that Jahveh was the storm-God (see below p. 30f.). 
However that may be, and however crude the begin¬ 
nings of the idea were, it helped in time to enlarge and 
exalt the conceptions of Jahveh. 


Chapter III 


PRIMITIVE ERRONEOUS CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 

(< Continued) 

A.— Materialistic Conceptions of the Nature of 
Jahveh. 

1. Anthropomorphic Ideas. 

There can be little doubt that Jahveh was at first 
conceived of in a very materialistic way as a vast, 
powerful and normally invisible being, very much 
like a human being. 

Hands and feet, eyes, nose, ears, face, etc., are con¬ 
stantly ascribed to Him, while He is referred to as 
riding, flying, walking, hearing, speaking and even 
eating and smelling. That these expressions were 
not in every case mere anthropomorphisms but were 
often intended literally, is most clearly seen in the 
matter of sacrifices. Sacrifices were originally looked 
upon as food for the god to whom they were offered. 
As a rule the worshippers took their share of this 
food; sometimes it was completely given over to the 
god. 

2. Gross Ideas related to Sacrifice. 

The blood and the fat were especially reserved for 
the god, except on the occasion of some particularly 


24 


PRIMITIVE CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 


25 


solemn communion sacrifice, when the worshippers also 
partook of the blood. In the Old Testament at such 
special sacrifices the worshippers were sprinkled with 
the blood instead of actually partaking of it. In the 
directions for the conduct of sacrifice in the Old Testa¬ 
ment the blood is always forbidden to the worshippers. 
Their share, when they have any, is the flesh. The 
blood belonged to Jahveh alone. The fat also was 
appropriated to Jahveh. 

The priest shall burn them [i.e. various portions of 
internal fat] upon the altar, it is the food of the offering 
made by fire for a sweet savour; all the fat is Jahveh's. 
It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your genera¬ 
tions, in all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor 
blood (Lev. iii. 16, 17). 

The fat was the food, the blood apparently the drink 
of Jahveh. The blood was conveyed to the Deity by 
being poured out, and the fat, as a rule, by being burnt. 
I have little doubt that the practice of burning tallow 
candles in worship originated in some such way as this, 
and that it is a survival of ancient sacrificial customs 
based on the extremely crude notion that food could 
thus be conveyed to the deity ! 

References to sacrifices, which show that they were 
intended as food and drink for the deity, are common 
enough in the Old Testament. Later teachers frequently 
spoke against them, e.g. 

I am full of the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed 
beasts, and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, etc. 

(Is. i. 11.) 

Will I, [says Jahveh] eat the flesh of bulls or drink 
the blood of goats? (Ps. 1 . 13.) 


26 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


And again, with reference to other gods, 

He shall say, where are their gods, . . . 

Which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, 

And drank the wine of their drink-offerings ? 

(Deut. xxxii. 37.) 

The smell of burnt-offerings was also believed to be 
most acceptable to the Deity. The old idea was that 
not only was this smell pleasing, but that the burnt 
sacrifice actually reached the Deity as food “ in the 
form of the fragrant fire-distilled essence.’’ When 
Noah made a sacrifice of burnt-offerings after 
the flood, the record says that Jahveh smelled the 
sweet savour (Gen. viii. 21). There can be little doubt 
that this was originally meant to be taken literally, and 
one is reminded by it of the still cruder phrase of the 
Babylonian Flood-story, “ The gods smelt the sweet 
savour. The gods gathered like flies over the sacrifice.” 
In the ancient poem called the “ Blessing of Moses,” 
the same thing is expressed even more plainly. 

They [the Levites] teach Jacob thy judgments. 

And Israel thy law: 

They bring to Thy nostrils the savour of sacrifice, 

And whole burnt-offerings to Thine altar. 

(Deut. xxxiii. 10.) 

3. Images of Jahveh. 

This material and corporeal conception of Jahveh 
is further exemplified by the fact that until as late as 
the eighth century b.c. images of Jahveh were in vogue, 
and were apparently looked upon as unobjectionable. 

There are numerous indications that these had their 
recognised place in the life and worship of the Hebrews. 
With the possible exception of Exodus xx. 4, there is no 


PRIMITIVE CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 


27 


sign that they were looked upon as out of accord with 
Jahveh-worship until the time of Hosea and onwards, 
when it was realised what a danger they were to true 
religion. We cite a few examples. ( a ) The graven 
image of Micah the Ephraimite was evidently an 
image of Jahveh, as it was made of silver and dedi¬ 
cated to Jahveh (Judges xvii. 3). There is no suggestion 
in the story that the making or setting up of the image 
was reprehensible—rather the contrary. ( b) The Ephod 
constructed by Gideon with the gold taken from the 
spoil of the Midianites (Judges viii. 27) was an 
image, and Gideon, it must be remembered, was the 
foremost champion of Jahveh of his age, and had 
actually endangered his life by destroying the acces¬ 
sories of alien worship. His historian, it is true, adds a 
word of censure, but his was the standpoint of the 
century after Hosea. (c) The teraphim* was an image 
of some kind, not necessarily of Jahveh. It is recorded 
of David that he kept a teraphim in his house (1 Sam. 
xix. 13). It is hardly likely that so zealous a worshipper 
of Jahveh as David would have in his house the image 
of any other god than Jahveh. 

Various phrases which occur also suggest the use of 
outward representations of Jahveh e.g. y “Three times 
in the year let all thy males see the face of [R. V. wrongly 
' appear before ’] Jahveh ” (Ex. xxxiv. 23). The phrase 
“ see the face of ” cannot be altogether figurative in 
this connection and almost certainly points to the 
presence of some kind of image of Jahveh in the sanc¬ 
tuary, which was shown from time to time. The phrase 

* The plural form is probably a plural of majesty, like Elohim, 
which is translated “ God.” 


28 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


“ bring him unto God.” “ come near unto God,” etc., in 
Ex. xxi. 6 ; xxii. 8 and g [where “ God ” is unjust- 
fiably rendered “ the Judges ” in the A.V. and R.V. 
Margin] are best explained in somewhat the same way. 

4. The meaning of the name Jahveh * 

If we could be certain as to the meaning of the 
name Jahveh, we might be able to understand better the 
primitive conceptions of His nature. And perhaps the 
reader ought to be reminded again that it would not 
really matter how crude those might be proved to have 
been ; for whatever crudities there may have been, they 

* There are other names used for Jahveh, but the meaning of 
them is for the most part so obscure that they throw but little light 
on the early ideas held with regard to Him. 

The names are as follows :— 

(1) “El” “ Elohim” “ Eloah” each of which is translated as 
God, and expresses in general the conception of Deity. 

(a) El : commonly used in this or similar form among most of 
the Semitic people as a designation for gods in general. The most 
likely derivation for the word is from a root signifying “ strength,” 
or “ might.” Another derivation suggested is from a root ’til 
(found in Arabic) which would give the word the sense of “ Leader.” 
And again it has been thought to be connected with the Hebrew 
preposition §1 = unto, which would make the word imply some¬ 
thing like the “ Ultimate” but this is far fetched. 

( b) Elohim which is the plural of Eloah. The plural is almost 
certainly a plural of majesty. The derivation is even more obscure 
than that of El. It may possibly be the same. 

(2) “ El Shaddai ” and “ Elyon.” These are rather descriptive 
titles than designations proper. 

(a) El Shaddai (A.V. “ God Almighty ”) meanings conjectured 
are (i.) “ (all) sufficient ” ; (ii.) as connected with Hebrew shed = 
demon; (iii.) “ Raingiver” as if derived from Heb. shadah = to 
pour forth; (iv.) “ The destroyer ” as if derived from Heb. shadah 
shadad, to destroy ; (v.) as connected with Assyr. shadu, a high 
mountain. The two latter are the most plausible. 

(&) “ Elyon,” “ Most High.” The same expression is used of 
monarchs. Whether originally the word ever implied a “ sky ” 
god, it is impossible to say. 


PRIMITIVE CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 


29 


were gradually shed as the true nature of the Deity 
became more fully realised. Erroneous ideas in the 
beginnings of a religion only matter in so far as there is a 
tendency to return to them or a reluctance to break 
away from them altogether. 

There are various derivations suggested for the 
name Jahveh. The “ I am that I am," or, as it ought 
to be rendered, “ I will be what I will be ” of Ex. iii. 14, 
would derive the word from the Hebrew Hayah to be, or 
rather from an archaic (and obsolete) form of it {havah ). 
There are, however, considerable etymological diffi¬ 
culties in the way of - accepting this derivation. 
Although probably etymologically incorrect, it shows 
the meaning ultimately attached to the name by the 
Hebrews.* As science it is wrong, as theology it is 
right. Taken in this way Jahveh would mean " he will 
be ” or perhaps “ he will be what he will be.” The 
expression does not refer to His essential nature, but to 
what He will approve Himself to others and to what He 
will show Himself to be to those in covenant with 
Him. What exactly He will be is not definitely stated, 
but it is implied in the context. He will prove Himself 
to be a Covenant-keeping God, and there is a hint of the 
“ same yesterday, to-day and forever.” That there are 
unexplored possibilities in Israel’s God may also legiti¬ 
mately be read into the explanation of the name. Such 
an explanation would indeed be a revelation whenso¬ 
ever and to whomsoever it came ; the correct derivation 
has no religious value beside it. 

* The document E. in which the explanation of the name occurs 
has a good many faulty but instructive and suggestive derivations of 
names in it. 


30 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


Other derivations are somewhat more probable 
etymologically, though they are for the most part 
mutually exclusive. Among these are the following :* 

The Creator—lit. he will cause to be (as if from 
hay ah or havah, to be—the form yahveh [Jahveh] is 
causative). 

The giver of life—lit. he will cause to live (as if from 
hay ah to live). 

The Blower—lit. he will blow (connecting the root 
with the Arab havva, to blow). 

The Falling One—lit. he will fall (from hava or havah, 
a Heb. hapax legomenon meaning fall). 

The Feller—lit. he will cause to fall (the causative 
of the same word). 

5. Jahveh—a Storm-God ? 

The three last derivations all point to Jahveh having 
been originally conceived of as a storm-god. The 
“ Blower ” would be the hurricane, the “ Falling One ” 
would be the thunderbolt, and the “ Feller ” the light¬ 
ning. If any one of them be correct, and they are by no 
means impossible, its significance fits in with the fact 
that Jahveh, especially in his theophanies, is closely 
associated with the thunder and lightning.f The 

* For fuller discussion of these, see Kautzsch, Religion of Israel, 
II., ii. 1, 2. 

f Cf. Ex. xix. 16-19; xx. 18; Judges v. 4,5 ; 1 Sam. ii. io;vii. 10; 
1 Kings xix. 11 ; Ps. xviii. 8-14 ; also the voice of Jahveh = thunder. 
Note also the reference to thunder in John xii. 28, 30. 


PRIMITIVE CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 


3i 


special association of Jahveh with thunder lingered long 
after the idea had been outgrown. 

It has been plausibly conjectured in this connection 
that the two tables of stone in the ark were originally 
meteoric stones—thunder-stones, and that these as 
having fallen from heaven were looked upon as especially 
sacred, perhaps even as abiding places of the thunder- 
god.* It is a curious and significant fact that such 
stones were called by the Greeks baitulia, which is simply 
a modified transliteration of the Semitic bait(h)el, i.e. 
Bethel, abode of God. 

6. The Significance of the Ark. 

If this were the case, it is easy to understand why the 
ark, which in itself was merely a box or portable recept¬ 
acle of some sort, was regarded with so much awe, and 
why the ark was, even in historic times, practically 
identified with Jahveh. Thus 

When the ark set forward, Moses said, Rise up, Jahveh, 
and let thine enemies be scattered, and let them that hate 
thee flee before thee. And when it rested he said, Return, 
Jahveh, unto the ten thousands of the thousands of Israel 
(Num. x. 35-36 [J]). 

Similarly, when David and the people danced before 
the ark it is spoken of as dancing before Jahveh 
(2 Sam. vi. 12-14, etc.; Cf. also Num. xiv. 42 ; Josh, 
iv. 11-13 ; iSam.iv. 6 ; 1 Sam. vi. 1-11). The presence 
of the ark meant the presence of Jahveh, and its absence 
meant His absence. The ark was certainly treated in 

* Xhere is no evidence in J or E that it was the tablets of the 
Covenant laws which were placed in the ark. The statement that 
this was so was Deuteronomic and later. 


32 GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 

these early days as far more than a symbol of these 
things.* 

7. Jahveh—God of Battles. 

The ark is constantly connected with the battles of 
the Israelites. Its presence was held to ensure victory 
and its absence defeat. (Cf. Num. xiv. 42-45 ; Josh, 
vi. i-ii ; 1 Sam. iv. 1-7 ; 2 Sam. xi. 11; xv. 24.) 
There is no doubt that Jahveh was until comparatively 
late times looked upon as a God of battles, and that this 
was considered one of His most important and character¬ 
istic functions. “ Jahveh is a man of war " says one of 
Israel's oldest poems (Ex. xv. 3). “ Jahveh teacheth my 
hands to war," says the Psalmist in the xviii. Psalm 
(verse 34). What is perhaps the oldest Hebrew book, 
quotations from which occur in JE, is called ” The 
Book of the Wars of Jahveh " (Num. xxi. 14). The wars 
in which Israel was engaged were nearly always Jahveh's 
wars in which He “ fought for Israel " (Josh. x. 14). 
All the Israelites who were taking part in a war were 
looked upon as taking part in a religious function, and 
had to abstain from all religious defilement.! The 
prisoners and the spoil were frequently treated as sacred 
to Jahveh and looked upon as of the nature of sacrifices 
or offerings (Judges i. 17 ; 1 Sam. xv. ; Micahiv. 13). 
The favourite name for Jahveh in this connection was 
Jahveh God of Hosts or, more shortly, Jahveh of Hosts 

* In “prophetic” times, as the conception of Jahveh became 
more and more spiritual, the religious importance of the ark waned, 
till in Jer. iii. 16, the ignoring and forgetting the ark is included as 
one of the marks of a hoped-for spiritual revival. 

f See W. Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, ed. 2, pp. 
402, 455f. 


PRIMITIVE CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 


33 


(Jahveh seba’oth, or, as we have it in the English New 
Testament, Lord of Sabaoth, Rom. ix. 29). The hosts 
were battle-hosts, the armies of Israel, though this 
did not necessarily exclude hosts of angelic warriors. 
In later times, when the idea of Jahveh became more 
exalted, and the warrior conception receded into the 
background, hosts came to refer exclusively to 
Heavenly Hosts, angelic hosts, and perhaps also the 
“ hosts of heaven,” sun, moon, and stars.* 

B.— Distorted Conceptions of the Character of 
Jahveh. 

It is in connection with Jahveh as a God of War 
that we find serious misconceptions of Jahveh’s real 
character, which have persisted for many ages and have 
even reappeared from time to time in Christian theology, 
though of course greatly modified and disguised, but 
which are entirely absent from Jesus’ revelation of the 
Father. These were, however, no worse—perhaps 
better—than those held by other nations at the same 
period with regard to their gods, while in Israel, as we 
shall see, the process of displacement of such ideas 
by worthier thoughts of Jahveh began very early. 

1. Jahveh Antagonistic to Foes of Israel. 

As God of Hosts it was natural that Jahveh should 
be thought of as antagonistic to all the enemies of Israel 

* The phrase “ Lord of Hosts ” is rarely if ever used in the 
Hexateuch and Judges. It is probable that the expression was 
either excluded or removed, lest there should be confusion with the 
worship of the “ hosts of heaven,” which was a dangerous temptation 
to the Hebrews especially in the time of the Deuteronomic editors 
but also earlier. 


34 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


and that He should war against them and destroy them. 
“ I, Jahveh, will be an enemy unto thy enemies and an 
adversary unto thy adversaries ” (Ex. xxiii. 22), 
represents the normal and for long universal belief with 
regard to Jahveh (cf. also Josh. xi. 20). 

2. Jahveh Vindictive. 

His attitude to certain of Israel’s foes is further 
represented as vindictive. In the case of the Amalekites, 
for instance, because they opposed Israel in the wilder¬ 
ness, Jahveh was believed to have set up a solemn blood- 
feud against this people, which was not to cease until 
they had been blotted out of existence. 

Jahveh said. . . I will utterly blot out the remem¬ 
brance of Amalek from under heaven. . . . Jahveh 

hath sworn. Jahveh will have war with Amalek from 
generation to generation (Ex. xvii. 14, 16). 

3. Jahveh Ruthless. 

Worse even than that is the ruthlessness displayed in 
the commands attributed to Jahveh with regard to these 
same Amalekites, and also to the Canaanites and others. 
Massacre of the most thorough and pitiless kind is not 
only enjoined but insisted on as a sacred duty, the 
neglect of which Jahveh will punish severely. 

Thus saith Jahveh of Hosts: Go smite Amalek and 
utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not; 
but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling. 

(1 Sam. xv. 3.) 

It is not necessary to multiply instances showing 
the blood-thirsty pitilessness to those outside the 
narrow limits of the nation of Israel generally 


PRIMITIVE CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 


35 


attributed to Jahveh. The same kind of estimate of 
Jahveh's character may also be seen in such incidents 
as the hanging of Saul's seven sons “ before Jahveh ” in 
order to propitiate Him, and so deliver Israel from the 
famine which came on the land year after year. “ And 
after that God was entreated for the land ” (2 Sam. 
xxi. 1-14). We may compare the curious story of the 
tw T o bears who tore forty-two lads because they had 
mocked Elisha, Jahveh’s prophet (2 Kings ii. 23). 

4. Jahveh Dangerous. 

Finally we may notice the somewhat kindred idea 
that Jahveh was a dangerous being with whom it was 
not safe to come into too close contact, and whom it was 
perilous to approach unless proper precautions were 
taken and certain regulations observed, an idea which is 
common enough in many other forms of primitive 
religion. One or two passages may be adduced to 
illustrate the presence of this belief among the Israelites. 
At Sinai, those who came too near risked death. 

Charge the people lest they break through unto 
Jahveh to gaze and many of them perish. . . . and 

let the priests also . . . sanctify themselves lest Jahveh 

break forth upon them (Ex. xix. 21, 22). 

Then much later, when David was having the ark 
conveyed to Jerusalem, the narrator tells us how 
Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God and took 
hold of it, for the oxen stumbled, and the anger of 
Jahveh was kindled against Uzzah, and God smote him 
for his rashness (2 Sam. vi. 7). Whatever may be 
the real explanation of this incident, it is clear enough 
how it was regarded (cf. also 1 Sam. vi. 19, 20, etc.). 

4 


36 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


Such views of Jahveh are not a subject on which one 
cares to dwell, and too much stress on them gives a 
wrong idea of the representation of God in the Old 
Testament as a whole. Yet they must not be over¬ 
looked nor glossed over, lest we fail to realise the 
advance in some of the later prophets and Psalmists or 
to appreciate the difference Christ has made. 


Chapter IV 


HIGHER PRE-PROPHETIC CONCEPTIONS OF 

GOD 

In the previous chapters we have set forth the more 
primitive ideas with regard to the Deity which were 
held by the Hebrews. In this chapter we have to 
investigate not the lower but the higher elements in 
the conception of God which was to be found even 
before the earliest literary prophets, Amos, Hosea and 
Isaiah. These are best seen in the religious standpoint 
of those who wrote and compiled the Hexateuch docu¬ 
ments generally known as J. and E.* But as these 
documents often embody earlier views of God and of 
religion in general than those actually held by the 
writers themselves, it is sometimes possible to trace 
in them a gradual process of growth from the lower to 
the higher. Generally speaking they have re¬ 
moulded the ancient stories and traditions to make 
them a suitable vehicle for passing on the fuller and 
truer revelation of God’s nature and character that had 
come to themselves ; but sometimes as we have already 

* J. — the Jahvistic document, emanated from Judah and 
probably belongs to the ninth century b.c. E . the Elohistic 
document emanated from N. Israel (Ephraim) and probably belongs 
to the eighth century b.c. J. and E. are to be found intertwined 
with P. (the Priestly Document) in the narrative portions of Genesis, 
Exodus and Numbers ; and with both D. (the Deuteronomic Docu¬ 
ment) and P. in Joshua. 


37 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


38 

seen the original narratives with their primitive point 
of view have been preserved by them almost intact. 

The most important features in the conception of 
God found in JE are the following :— 

(1) Advance from polytheism to monolatry. 

(2) Belief in the personality of God. 

(3) Gradual apprehension of the Spirituality of God. 

(4) Belief in the moral nature of God and growing 

insight into His character. 

A.—Advance from Polytheism to Monolatry. 

There are one or two possible traces of an earlier 
polytheism in JE, such as the phrase in Gen. iii. 22 
man is become as one of us. But even if this expression 
was originally polytheistic, it is an exception which 
proves the rule, for practically all other traces of poly¬ 
theism have been carefully expunged from such of the 
stories incorporated in JE as may have been tinged by 
it. The story of the Flood is a case in point. The 
Babylonish versions of it, one of which at least, is much 
older than J’s version, are polytheistic throughout 
(cf. e.g. above p. 26). In J. the story is carefully purged 
from any such taint. 

Elohim the usual Hebrew word for God is, it is true, 
a plural form, but as used in the Old Testament has 
nothing to do with polytheism. It is merely a plural of 
majesty* similar to our regal “ we,” and except where 
it refers to heathen gods, it always takes a singular verb. 
But although the writers of J. and E. are certainly not 

* Cf. p. 27 n. 


HIGHER CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 


39 

polytheists, even in their language they are not yet 
properly monotheistic. 

They were monolatrists,—that is to say, they wor¬ 
shipped but one God. They did not categorically deny 
the existence of other gods, even while they refused 
to worship them. Other gods hardly came within the 
scope of JE, but in the history of Israel after the settle¬ 
ment in Canaan it is quite evident that the gods of 
other nations and lands were recognised by the Hebrews 
as having a real and sometimes effective existence. 
Jephthah, in Judges xi. 24, speaks as if the god 
Chemosh had a real existence. 

So now Jahveh, the God of Israel, hath dispossessed 
the Amorites from before His people, and shouldest thou 
possess them ? Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh 
thy god giveth thee to possess ? 

Again, in 2 Kings iii. 27, when Mesha the sheep 

king of Moab sacrificed his eldest son on the wall of 

his besieged city, the “ great wrath/’ which the 

historian says came on Israel can be none other than 

the wrath of the god of the land, whom by this most 

efficacious offering Mesha had at last moved to action 

against the invaders of the land (cf. also David's 

language in 1 Sam. xxvi. 19). 

Professor A. C. Welch says of the writers of J. and E. 

“ They have no theory of the divine unity, but they are 

worshippers of one God. That the other nations 

acknowledge other gods is of course known to them ; 

but what these gods may be in themselves or whether 

they have any real existence, is of no real importance.”* 

Jahveh was to them the only God who was of any real 

account. The God who in their narratives came into 

* The Religion of Israel under the Kingdom , p. 8. 


40 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


contact with men, and for the matter of that with the 
universe, was always for them one and the same person. 
The God who walked with Adam, the God who saved 
Noah, the God who spoke to Abraham in Ur of the 
Chaldees, the God who sent dreams to Pharaoh in 
Egypt, the God who delivered Israel from Eygpt, was 
one and the same God. 

Renan has said that the Semite was a born mono¬ 
theist. This is true to the extent that the tendency of 
the desert Semites was in the direction of the worship 
of a single God. Within each tribe, as we have 
seen, there was often but one tribal God. The bare 
monotony of the desert with its sense of isolation and 
simplicity is no encouragement to the multiplication of 
gods and goddesses. It may well be that it was in and 
through the desert that the Israelites began to learn the 
lesson of loyalty to one God to the exclusion of others. 
But Canaan, the land into which the Israelites came, was 
a very hotbed of polytheism, and that of the most de¬ 
grading type. As Principal G. A. Smith says,—“ the 
rich soil of the land with its luxuriant vegetation drew 
away the Semitic tribes who settled there from the 
austerity of their desert faith, and turned them into 
polytheists of the rankest kind. The natural fertility 
of Syria . . . intoxicated her immigrants with 

nature-worship.”* The marvel of the story is that 
this land of all others with its supremely polytheistic 
tendencies should have been the cradle of monotheism. 
The study of the religion of the people of Canaan does 
bring out into strong relief the presence and power of 
those spiritual forces which in spite of the contrary 
* Historical Geography of the Holy Land, p. 30. 


HIGHER CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 


4i 


tendencies of environment and the force of example did 
in time create there a monotheistic creed and a 
pure conception of the Divine. Monotheism proper, 
however, did not enter into the warp and woof of 
Hebrew religion until the Exile, before which time 
Israel's monolatry even, was sorely tested and tried. 
But such monolatry as that of JE was a big step towards 
that monotheism which was one of Israel’s best gifts to 
the world. 

B.— Belief in the Personality of God. 

A vivid sense of the personality of God runs through 
all the JE narratives, and more particularly is 
expressed in the JE stories in Genesis and Exodus. 
The writers of these exhibit to us God, not as some 
abstract philosophical theory, not as an impersonal 
“ force making for righteousness," not as some trans¬ 
cendent Being far off from the sphere of human life and 
action, still less as a vague possible Something some¬ 
where at the back of things, but as a living, personal 
reality, in the world even if not of it, in close contact 
with men, and as One with whom human beings might 
have fellowship. Jahveh in J’s Genesis stories comes 
into the life of the world as if He were a man. He 
investigates the condition of things on the earth Himself. 
He forms Adam and then Eve with His own hands. 
He holds conversations. He walks and talks, He even 
wrestles and dines (Gen. xxxii. 24-30 ; xviii. T-17) ! 
J. is much more lavish in these anthropomorphisms than 
E., who is, as we shall see, more deliberately careful not 
to give a materialistic or corporeal conception of Jahveh. 
The value of these naive representations of Jahveh lies 


42 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


partly in the fact that they help one to realise that 
God enters into direct personal relations with men, and 
partly in that they help one to picture God. The 
ordinary human mind must think of God in concrete 
terms, and even now conceives most easily of the person¬ 
ality of God in terms drawn from human analogies. 

One of the most impressive passages which repre¬ 
sents the Divine Being as personal and present is that 
in which Moses and Jahveh are pictured as speaking 
together almost as if on familiar terms. “ And Jahveh 
spake unto Moses face to face as a man speaketh unto 
his friend ” (Ex. xxxiii. n). It is perhaps not too 
much to say that this clothing of God in human form, 
that men might see Him in their imaginations and 
realise that He was not altogether out of man’s reach, 
was in its own way a step towards the Incarnation when 
God revealed Himself to men in human form, but this 
time not in beautiful literary pictures but in a real 
man,—the Son of Man. And now we are able to think 
of God in terms of that Man. 

C.— Gradual Apprehension of the Spirituality of 
God. 

Although the anthropomorphic portrayal of God, 
and especially of God manifesting Himself in some way 
or other to human beings, has a great religious value, 
yet it had its dangers especially amongst those who 
were all too readily inclined to low and materialistic 
views of God. Partly for this reason, and partly 
because the religious teachers of Israel were themselves 
coming to realise more clearly the spiritual nature of 
God, the use of the bolder kind of anthropomorphic 


HIGHER CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 


43 


representations began to be eliminated in their writings. 
This tendency is sometimes to be found in J., but 
much more so in E., where God is rarely spoken of as 
Himself coming into direct contact with men and 
Himself appearing to them in the likeness of man. 

Instead of appearing Himself, God was represented 
as revealing Himself in dreams, or else more often 
through His “ angel ” or “ messenger/' This “ angel ” 
of Jahveh was not a creature as were the angels of the 
later books of the Old Testament but was a visible 
and audible manifestation of the presence and activity 
of Jahveh Himself.* He was a picturesque substitute 
for Jahveh in the describing of His real presence and 
personal interventions. 

There are many examples of this substitution of the 
Angel of Jahveh for Jahveh wherever it seemed neces¬ 
sary to guard against the idea of Jahveh Himself being 
such that He could be seen or heard physically, and an 
illuminating one may be found in the story of Hagar in 
the wilderness. The Angel of Jahveh meets Hagar 
and sends her back to her mistress. “ The Angel of 
Jahveh also said to her, Behold, thou shalt bear a son, 
and thou shalt call his name Ishmael because Jahveh 
[not the Angel of Jahveh this time, the substitution was 
not considered necessary when it was a case of cogni¬ 
sance] hath heard of thine ill-treatment ” (Gen. xvi. 
n J.). It should be noticed, on the other hand, that 
the “ Angel ” identifies Himself with Jahveh in v. io. 
" Moreover, the Angel of Jahveh said to her, I will 

* For “ Angel of Jahveh ” in E. see Gen. xxii. n. For later 
ideas of angels, cf. Zech. i. nf.; Ps. xxxv. 5f.; lxxviii. 49 ; xci. n ; 
ciii. 30 ; Dan. iii. 28. 


44 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


multiply thy descendants, etc." The transition is even 
clearer in the Elohistic account of Hagar in the wilder¬ 
ness, this time with Ishmael. “God heard the cry of the 
lad, and the Angel of God called to Hagar from Heaven ” 
(Gen. xxi. 17). In this passage even the Angel has 
become spiritualised. Apparently he is not even seen 
by Hagar, only heard, while it is from heaven that he 
speaks. 

In addition to the process of shedding anthropo¬ 
morphisms in descriptions of Jahveh’s relations with 
men, there are other indications in J. and E. that the 
spirituality of His nature was being recognised by the 
writers and their school. The narratives of the 
Patriarchs and of Moses are not told as by men 
altogether hampered with either the territorial or 
tribal conceptions of Jahveh. Jahveh is represented 
as revealing Himself both when and where He will and 
to whom He will. He communicates with men who are 
outside the tribe, such as Abimelech the Philistine, 
Pharaoh the Egyptian, Balaam the Ammonite (or 
Aramean), and He uses them as the instruments of His 
will. It must be noticed on the other hand that 
normally His dealings with outsiders were on behalf of 
the tribe. Still, the principle once admitted had far- 
reaching consequences. Similarly in the stories of the 
past history of the Hebrew race it was made abun¬ 
dantly evident that Jahveh in times past at least was 
by no means confined to the Israelitish territory of the 
present. He revealed Himself to Abraham in Ur, 
which was either in far off Babylon or in Aram, and He 
showed forth His redemptive power in Egypt. In 
Palestine itself, in patriarchal days, His presence and 


HIGHER CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 


45 


His manifestation of Himself were not altogether con¬ 
fined to certain sanctuaries or holy places,* though this 
particular point cannot be pressed very confidently. 

In JE we notice, too, that the normal accessories 
of worship, the altar and mazzebah, etc., are treated 
rather as accessories than as essentials. When they 
are mentioned it is generally as the outward accompani¬ 
ment of intercourse with Jahveh, not as the necessary 
medium of such intercourse. There is remarkably 
little stress laid on the outward and visible in worship, 
and it is probably a legitimate inference that this was 
owing to the primary interest of the writers in the inward 
and spiritual side of it. Their interest in the spiritual is 
the more remarkable since such outward instruments of 
worship as were mentioned or implied often had their 
origin in most crude and unspiritual conceptions of 
the Deity. 

Lastly, in regard to Jahveh’s close connection 
with the processes of nature, and especially with the 
more terrific natural phenomena such as thunder and 
storm, there are passages in JE where He is apparently 
recognised not as identified with these but as con¬ 
trolling them, e.g. y “ I (Jahveh) will cause it to rain upon 
the earth forty days and forty nights ” (Gen. vii. 4). 
Jahveh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and 
fire out of heaven (Gen. xix. 24). Jahveh caused the 
sea to go back by a strong East wind (Ex. xiv. 21 b [J]). 
Jahveh is represented as the God of pestilence ( e.g . in 

* Prof. Welch says {op. cit. p. 14) “ The spirituality of Jahveh is 
also clearly shown in His relation to the sanctuaries. . . When 

we find that most of the places in which Jahveh is declared to have 
revealed Himself to the patriarchs have no association with any 
later worship, etc.” 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


46 

the plagues of Egypt) as well as of storm, which shows 
further that in the mind of the writers of JE He is not 
identical with storm and the kindred phenomena. 

D.— Belief in the Moral Nature of God, and 
Growing Insight into His Character. 

That Jahveh was conceived of as a moral being, and 
neither as a blind force nor as an unmoral or arbitrary 
personality, is constantly implied in JE, and not seldom 
clearly illustrated. 1. This appears in the ethical 
demands made upon the Israelites by Jahveh in the 
Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii.) which is incor¬ 
porated in JE. Apart from what may be regarded as 
civil laws and ceremonial regulations, Jahveh is repre¬ 
sented as including certain laws of kindness and mercy, 
the non-fulfilment of which is connected not with civil 
penalties, but with Jahveh’s personal disapproval. 
“ If thou afflict them [any widow or fatherless child] 
in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely 
hear their cry, and my wrath will wax hot ” (Ex. xxii. 
23, 24). Usury to the poor is forbidden as also is the 
keeping after sundown of a neighbour’s garment taken 
in pledge,—“ when he crieth unto me, I will hear, for I 
am gracious ” (Ex. xxii. 25-27.) (cf. also xxiii. 1-9, 
and especially the way in which Jahveh, as it were, 
holds up His own moral example “ I do not justify the 
wicked” xxiii. 7). 

Jahveh’s moral requirements are pictured as extend¬ 
ing beyond His own worshippers. It is for their lack of 
righteousness and their actual immorality that He 
destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. xviii. and xix.), 
and it was because the wickedness of mankind was great 


HIGHER CONCEPTIONS OF GOD 


47 


upon the earth that He brought the flood upon the 
earth (Gen. vi.). 

2. Not only is Jahveh shown to be concerned with 
conduct, but certain fundamental elements in His own 
character are suggested in certain of the narratives and 
elsewhere. Jahveh is shown to be righteous inasmuch 
as He punished wickedness. Whether He is just is not 
so clear, for Abraham is represented as interceding with 
Him lest He consume the innocent with the guilty 
(Gen. xviii.). One cannot help suspecting, however, 
that the true purpose of the narrator of this story is to 
suggest thereby that Jahveh does not really act 
unjustly nor indiscriminatingly, though at first sight He 
may appear to His servants to be doing so. 

That Jahveh could be pitiful appears in the laws of 
the Covenant to which we have already referred, and also 
in the beautiful story of the way in which He heard 
and answered the cry wrung from the thirst-parched lips 
of the little lad dying in the Wilderness. 

Finally we may notice the story of the sacrifice of 
Isaac, which is the record of a great step in the right 
apprehension of JahvelTs character. It is not quite 
certain that the sacrifice of children was ever counten¬ 
anced in Jahveh-worship*. It is, however, all too clear 
that it had a place in the kindred and neighbouring 
religions. Even in the religions of far more civilised 

* There can be little doubt, however, that up to the time of the 
Exile some of the Hebrews did sacrifice their children, and there is 
also little doubt that in certain cases at least it was to Jahveh that 
the ghastly offering was made, cf, e.g. Jer. vii. 31 and xix. 5 ; 
Micah vi. 6 ; Ezekiel and Isaiah likewise repudiate the practice. 
It is possible that latterly most of such sacrifices were not made to 
Jahveh, but to some neighbouring Deity such as Moloch, and that 
where they were actually made to Jahveh, it was done in imitation 
of the heathen practices round about. 


4 8 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


peoples, long after human sacrifice had revolted ordinary 
humanitarian instincts and various substitutes had been 
contrived for it, there remained deep-rooted the con¬ 
viction that a human life, and especially the life of a son, 
was in the eyes of the god far the most precious and 
efficacious thing a man could offer, and that if 
nothing else would please the god such a sacrifice would 
do so*. 

The story of the offering of Isaac embodies the 
apprehension of the fact that, though Jahveh was well 
pleased that Abraham should have been willing to give 
Him his best and most precious possession, yet He was 
not a god who would have any such deed as a human 
sacrifice perpetrated in the worship of Him. The story 
involves the recognition that Jahveh’s character is such 
that He refuses such cruel offerings. How far back 
this recognition went in the religious history of the 
Hebrews, one cannot say ; there is no good reason why 
it should not go back to Abraham. It may seem a 
step that does not lead very far forward, but until it was 
made, the way was not clear for the true comprehension 
of what the Love of God meant. 


* e.g., 2 Kings, ill. 27. 


Chapter V 


FROM MONOLATRY TO MONOTHEISM 
A.— Overthrow of Pluralism in Jahveh Worship. 

One important step in the direction of pure mono¬ 
theism which was partly concurrent with the growing 
apprehension of Jahveh’s “ supremacy/' and which, 
as we shall see, finally resulted in making monotheism 
fundamental in Judaism, may first be discussed 
before carrying forward the main point. 

It would seem that sometimes the worship of local 
baals persisted alongside the worship of Jahveh in 
various parts of the land. Where this was the case, 
it frequently happened that even after Jahveh had 
superseded the local baal, the worship tended to 
revert to type. Instead of local baals there came 
to be local Jahvehs, just as in the Roman Catholic 
Church has grown up the cult of local Madonnas, which 
are popularly worshipped as if they w r ere distinct 
persons. The danger was that monolatrist Jahvism 
might really revert in practice to a kind of polytheism 
of its own. For this reason, and perhaps still more 
because the worship at some of these local shrines came 
more and more to approximate to the immoral and 


49 


50 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


unspiritual type of worship prevalent at baal sanctu¬ 
aries,* it was felt in the seventh century, if not earlier, 
by some among those whose eyes had been enlightened 
to see the utter disparity between Jahveh and the baals, 
and also between Jahveh as He really was and a Jahveh 
conceived in terms of one baal or many baals, that the 
only remedy in the national religion would be suppres¬ 
sion of all these local Jahveh sanctuaries and the central¬ 
isation of the public worship of Jahveh at one sanctuary , 
viz., Jerusalem, f The advantages of this were, (i) that 
the worship could more easily be kept pure under the 
direction of the more enlightened priests and prophets 
at the one central sanctuary, more especially as Jeru¬ 
salem may possibly have had no previous associations of 
baal-worship; (2) that there being but one lawful 
sanctuary, it might be recognised once and for all that 
Jahveh was one and not many, and that a stop might 
then be put to the process of differentiating the 
Jahvehs of the various local shrines. The policy stood 
in short for the final conquest over the polytheistic 
tendencies of the land. 

The danger of the confusion of Jahveh-worship and 
baal-worship had been perceived by the great prophets 
of the eighth century, especially by Hosea. The actual 
religious policy based on this recognition was formulated 

* Probably there were certain elements common both to the 
baal and the Jahveh sanctuaries from the beginning, such as the 
sacred pillar (mazzebah) and the sacred pole (asherah), the altar, and 
sometimes at least, the image of the Deity, e.g. the golden calf at 
Bethel. 

t This was the more easy as the Northern Kingdom with its 
many recognised shrines had now disappeared (721 b.c.), while the 
Kingdom of Judah itself had become reduced to very small 
dimensions. 


FROM MONOLATRY TO MONOTHEISM 51 


somewhere in the seventh century, and was incor¬ 
porated in the Book of Deuteronomy in which is 
enshrined and formulated so much of the prophetic 
teaching of the previous half century. In this book, 
the law of the One Sanctuary * is set forth (Deut. xii. 
1-18 ; xvi. 5, 6, etc.). This law was rigorously put 
into force by Josiah at his great reformation in 621 
B.c., the Temple at Jerusalem was cleansed, and the 
local sanctuaries were suppressed with a high hand 
(2 Kings xxiii.). 

Along with this doctrine of the one Sanctuary came 
what has been called “ the fundamental Deuteronomic 
law,” that Jahveh Himself is One. “ Hear, O Israel, 
Jahveh thy God is one Jahveh ” (Deut. vi. 4). This 
did not mean in the first instance, as afterwards 
it came to be understood, that there was only one 
God and that Jahveh was that one. It was not out of 
accord with such a belief, f but it was primarily a 
declaration of the unity of Jahveh, as contrasted with 
the plurality of baal, and with the apparent plurality of 
a Jahveh of many sanctuaries. 

Deuteronomy thus represents the last stage in the 
great fight against polytheism and everything con¬ 
nected with it, but especially against that subtle form 
of polytheism which invaded the cult of Jahveh from 
the cult of the baals, which may be called poly-Jahvism. 

* “ The older law books, far from forbidding sacrifice at altars 
other than in Jerusalem formally sanction erection of such altars. . . 
Elijah was in despair at the sacrilege which threw down such altars.” 
G. F. Moore. Art. Deut. in Encyclopedia Biblica col. 1085. 

t As a matter of fact, it is clear from other passages in the book 
that the Deuteronomist writers were not far off from such a 
categorical denial of other gods than Jahveh, only it is not stated 

here. 


5 


52 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


From Josiah's time the belief in the unity of Jahveh 
with all that that involves was never again really in 
danger. Idolatry reappeared from time to time, but 
it was always distinct from Jahveh-worship. 

B. —Apprehension of the Supremacy and 
Uniqueness of Jahveh. 

In the earlier stages of the religion of the Israelites 
in Canaan we find the sincere worshippers of Jahveh 
worshipping Him alone and strenuously deprecating 
the worship of any other gods. In the main the 
problem then before the Hebrews was not the question 
of the existence of other gods of other nations or of 
their relation to them, but of their attitude towards 
what one may call the native deities of their own land, 
in particular the baals. When the introduction of the 
worship of foreign gods was attempted it brought up 
the question of the loyalty of the people to Jahveh as 
their national god rather than the more theological 
question of the relation of these foreign gods to 
Jahveh. That is to say, Monolatry rather than 
Monotheism was for many centuries the practical issue 
in Israel, although the conception of the nature of their 
God Jahveh, who alone was to be worshipped, was 
growing and expanding in such a way in the minds of 
some, at least, of the Hebrews, that it was rapidly turn¬ 
ing into monotheism. 

In the writings of the eighth century (800-700 b.c.) 
it is difficult either to affirm or deny, to prove or dis¬ 
prove, the existence of a full monotheistic view of God 
in the mind of the writers. It is possible they were to 


FROM MONOLATRY TO MONOTHEISM 53 


all intents and purposes monotheists but had not 
analysed the position or yet realised its implications. 

The growth of the belief in one God, and one only, 
seems to have come mainly along the line of growth 
in the realisation and experience of the supremacy of 
Jahveh over all other gods, till finally He so filled 
the religious horizon of His people as to leave room 
for no other gods beside Him, the others being simply 
crowded out. The more His universal power and 
living reality were grasped by faith, the more did 
belief in the power and even the reality of the gods of 
the other nations fade away, until, if they were thought 
of at all, it was as lifeless ghosts, or as degraded demons, 
robbed of their power and might. 

As the Hebrews came into close contact with the 
great conquering nations of their world, the Assyrians 
and later the Babylonians, their monolatry was 
severely tested. From this testing, as will be seen, the 
nation finally emerged not as monolatrists but as mono¬ 
theists, and their monotheism, so far from being an 
abstract theory of the schools, entered into the very 
life-blood of the national religion. 

It was the common belief among the Semites that 
when one nation conquered another it was owing to the 
superiority of the god or gods of the victors. Minor 
defeats might be held to be owing to the deliberate 
defections of the god of the vanquished, probably 
because he was displeased with them. But normally 
defeat of the nation meant the defeat of the god. The 
Hebrews themselves always attributed their victories 
to Jahveh, and felt that these demonstrated His power 
and superiority. The Assyrians and the Babylonians, 


54 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


as we know from their inscriptions,* also habitually 
attributed their conquests to their gods ; and as State 
after State and kingdom after kingdom went down 
before the might of the Assyrians in the latter part of 
the eighth century, it seemed to the Semitic peoples 
that no gods could withstand the all-powerful Assyrian 
deities. One after another the other gods, so it 
appeared to them, proved insufficient, powerless, useless. 
The situation and the current reading of it are clearly 
portrayed in the account given in Is. xxxvi. 18-20 
of Sennacherib’s message to the people of Jerusalem 
shortly before the great and unexpected deliverance 
that came to Jerusalem. 

Hearken not unto Hezekiah when he misleads you saying 
“ Jahveh will deliver us.” Has any of the gods of the nations 
ever delivered his land out of the power of the King of Assyria ? 
Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad ? Where are the 
gods of Sepharvaim ? Where are the godsf of the land of 
Samaria that they have delivered Samaria out of my power ? 
Who are they among all the gods of the countries that have 
delivered their country out of my power ? 

“ Who are they among all the gods of the countries 
that have delivered their country out of my power ? ” 
Thanks to Isaiah, the people of Jerusalem did not 
act in accordance with these suggestions, although 
they must have found them hard to resist, and the city 
was not surrendered. In consequence of the wonder¬ 
ful and unexpected deliverance that ensued (Is. xxxvii. 
36-38) Jahveh’s power and might were vindicated 

* e.g. In Sennacherib’s inscription dealing with his campaign 
against Jerusalem and the Philistine cities in 701 b.c., he says : 
“ The might of the arms of Ashur my lord overwhelmed them,” and 
again, “ With the help of Ashur my lord I fought with them, and 
accomplished their defeat.” Taylor Cylinder, Col. II. 

t It must not be forgotten that the God of Samaria was Jahveh. 


FROM MONOLATRY TO MONOTHEISM 55 

in the eyes of the Judeans, instead of His being 
discredited and relegated to the position of the gods of 
Hamath and Arpad. He had held His own, and more 
than held His own, with the great gods of Assyria. It is 
instructive to note that Isaiah had learned this lesson of 
Jahveh’s superiority before this, even in the time of 
Judah’s humiliation, as witness his great poem in 
x. 5-15, 27-34. 


5 Woe Asshur, rod of mine anger. 

The staff in whose hand is mine indignation! 

6 Against an impious nation am I wont to send him, 

And against the people of my wrath I give him a charge. 

7 But he . . . not so doth he plan. . . 

For destruction is in his heart 

To cut off the nations not a few. 

8, 9 For he saith . . . “Is not Calno's faith that of 

Carchemish ? 

11 “ Shall not I, as I have done to Samaria and her idols. 

Do likewise to Jerusalem and her images ? 

13 By the strength of my hands have I done it ” . 

15 Shall the axe vaunt itself over him who hews therewith ? 
Or shall the saw magnify itself over him who wields it ? 
As if a rod could sway him who lifts it, 

As if a staff could lift up him who is not wood. 

In other words, in Isaiah’s eyes great Assyria was only 
Jahveh’s instrument of punishment and could do no 
more than Jahveh allowed. But his faith and the 
faith of his disciples must have been greatly strengthened 
by the turning back of Assyria. Jahveh had now been, 
as it were, measured against the greatest of the gods 
of the world and had not been found wanting. 


56 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


This new and enlarged view of Jahveh found expres¬ 
sion in Deuteronomy. 

What great nation is there that hath a god so nigh unto 
them as our God whenever we call upon Him ? (Deut. iv. 7). 
For Jahveh, your God, He is God of gods and Lord of lords, 
the great God, the mighty, the terrible (Deut. x. 17). 

Jahveh, He is God in Heaven above and on earth beneath. 
There is none else (Deut. iv. 39). 

Unto thee it ( i.e ., Jahveh’s mighty prowess) was shewed 
that thou mightest know that Jahveh, He is God : there is 
none else beside Him (Deut. iv. 35). 


Here we have Jahveh compared with other gods, 
even the greatest of them, and His superiority exult- 
ingly announced. The repeated phrase " there is none 
else,” if it really means that no other gods exist except 
Jahveh, and is not a hyperbolic way of saying “is 
incomparable,”* would seem to be a distinct advance 
even on Isaiah’s position and to leave no more to be 
said in a statement of the purest monotheism. 

Once more, however, came a great testing time. 
Jerusalem fell before Babylon, and the Judeans became 
like them of Hamath and Arpad and Sepharvaim. It 
seemed as if the gods of Babylon had utterly prevailed, 
and as if Jahveh had utterly failed to withstand their 
might. Instead of the mocking question “ Where are 


* It is not safe, however, to push such phrases to their utmost 
limits. Parallels may be found in Babylonian hymns where no 
monotheism is intended. 

“ O Lord (Sin, the Moon god) chief of the gods who alone is exalted 
in earth or heaven,” 

“ Who is exalted in Heaven ? Thou alone art exalted 
Who is exalted on earth ? Thou alone art exalted,” etc. 
Similarly, Ishtar is addressed as “ sovereign of sovereigns, goddess 
of goddesses.” 

Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament , pp. 141, 144, 153. 


FROM MONOLATRY TO MONOTHEISM 57 

the gods of Hamath and Arpad ? ” the question which 
the Judeans now had to face was “ Where is Jahveh ? ” 
And the answer, according to the compelling logic of 
circumstances, seemed to be “ Powerless, before the 
superior might of the gods of our adversaries/' The 
presence of this great problem for even the faithful 
among the Judeans is seen in such Psalms as xlii. 3b, 
which was written about this time. 

3. My tears have been my meat day and night while they 
continually say unto me, Where is thy God ? 

10. As with a sword in my bones mine adversaries reproach 
me while they continually say unto me, Where is thy God ? 

There was no wonderful deliverance this time to 
strengthen and confirm the wavering faith of those who 
believed in Jahveh. Indeed, the belief in the inviola¬ 
bility of Jahveh’s sanctuary, on which many had based 
their faith from the time of Isaiah onward, had broken 
down and had shown itself to be as a “ bruised reed, 
which if a man lean on, it will go into Iiis hand and 
pierce it." 

Yet from this black experience, which shook all 
faith in Jahveh to the very foundations, emerged a 
nation whose fundamental and unalterable conviction 
had come to be that their God was a God so Almighty 
that none could stand before Him, so supreme that 
beside Him even the great gods of their conquerors 
were no gods, such a God that the belief in Him pre¬ 
cluded even the belief in the existence of any other. 
This would seem to show that a nation’s beliefs are not 
always moulded by its circumstances. 


58 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


This incomparable superiority of Jahveh to all else, 
whether to the so-called gods of the nations that still 
oppressed the Jews, or to anything and everything else 
in the universe, is magnificently set forth in many 
passages in second Isaiah written at the close of the exile 
and later. The most important passages are : Is. xl. 
12-31; xli. 21-34 ; xliv. 6-23 ; xliv. 24-28 ; xlv. 1-25 ; 
xlvi. 1-13. If these are examined in full, it will be seen 
how closely the thought of Jahveh as the One and only 
God is connected with the apprehension of His know¬ 
ledge, power and presence and of His creative relations 
to the Universe. It was, to no small extent, the growing 
apprehension of all these which helped the worshippers 
of Jahveh to realise that there could be only one such 
God. 

Perhaps the most striking utterances of the prophet 
in this connection relate to his estimate of other 
gods than Jahveh, and particularly to his scornful 
rejection of the very idea of their existence. He 
satirically identifies the gods with their images, 
“ unjustly, of course so far as the history of religion is 
concerned, but in consequence of the belief that apart 
from these man-made images they do not really exist.”* 
He ridicules the belief in them as irrational and absurd. 
As Sir G. A. Smith says, “ the gods of the nations are 
treated as things in whose existence no reasonable person 
can possibly believe.”f The prophet “held his mono¬ 
theism with all his mind." We find him “ conscious of 
it not only as a religious affection, but as a necessary 
intellectual conviction/ ’ f In chapter xliv. he scathingly 

* Schultz, Old Testament Theology, Vol. I., p. 303. 

f G. A. Smith, Isaiah , Vol. II., p. 40. 


FROM MONOLATRY TO MONOTHEISM 59 


describes the making of a god in striking contrast with 
Jahveh, who had no beginning. 

6 Thus saith the King of Israel, 

Even his Redeemer, Jahveh of Hosts; 

I am the first and the last; 

And beside me there is no God . . . 

10 Who has ever fashioned a god ? 

14 One cuts down cedar trees for his use, 

15 So it becomes fuel for men . . . 

He also sets it ablaze and bakes bread; 

Yea, he makes a god and worships it . . . 

16 Half of it he burns in the fire . . . 

He warms himself and says Aha, 

I am warm and see the glow. 

17 The rest of it he makes into a god; 

He bows down to his image and worships it, 

And prays to it and says, 

Deliver me, for thou art my God ! 

In chapter xli. there is a passage where the prophet 
challenges any of the heathen gods to do something 
god-like, comparable with the deeds of Jahveh,—or 
indeed to do anything whatsoever : 

21 Bring forward your champion saith Jahveh the One 
God. 

Produce your idols, saith Jacob’s King . 

23 Announce things to come hereafter that we may know 

that ye are gods, 

Yea do something, be it good or bad . 

24 Behold ye are nought and your work is nothingness. 

In chapter xlvi. the prophet specially singles out the 
chief of the gods of Babylon and contrasts them with 


6o 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


Jahveh. Even these, he prophesies, shall prove to be 
nothing but burdens for tired beasts, for they shall be 
carried away helpless into exile. Jahveh, on the other 
hand, so far from being such a one as needs, forsooth, to 
be carried, is one who will always bear up his people. 

1 Bel is bowed down, Nebo stoops, 

The idols are consigned to the beasts and cattle, 

They are lifted up as a burden for tired animals, 

2 They stoop and are bowed down together, 

They are unable to rescue the burden, 

But themselves are gone into captivity. 

3 Hearken to me, O house of Jacob 

And all the remnant of the house of Israel, 

Who have been carried as a burden from birth, 

Who have been borne from the mother’s womb: 

4 Even to old age I am the same, 

Until ye are grey-haired I will support you ; 

It is I who have borne the burden and will still carry it, 
It is I who bear and will deliver. 

5 To whom will ye liken me and make me equal ? 

To whom compare me that I may be similar ? 

The thought of Jahveh as God alone, the one and 
only ultimate source and creator of all things, is 
amplified and is reiterated again and again. It is the 
ever-recurring theme, the constant groundwork of the 
prophet’s message, the basis of his hopes for Israel. 
This is most clearly seen in the wonderful poem, Is. xl. 
12-31, and in chapter xlv., from which we may quote a 
few selections: 

5 I am J ahveh, and there is none else; 

Beside me there is no God. 

6 . there is none beside me; 

I am Jahveh and there is none other. 


FROM MONOLATRY TO MONOTHEISM 61 


7 Maker of light and creator of darkness, 

Bringer of good fortune and author of evil, 

I, Jahveh, perform all this . . . 

12 It was I who made the earth, 

And mankind upon it I created: 

It was my hands that stretched out the Heavens . 

14 There is none other God at all. 

18 Thus saith Jahveh—he is the one God, 

The founder and maker of the earth, 

I am Jahveh and there is none else. 

No God beside me. 

Similar thoughts frequently occur in later writings 
in the Old Testament, especially in the Psalter,* though 
seldom more powerfully and passionately expressed. 
From this time onwards monotheism was axiomatic in 
the religion of the Jews. It was the fact above all others 
with regard to God that the whole Jewish nation most 
perfectly and purely apprehended. The lesson was so 
well learned that when Jesus came He was able to take 
it for granted in His further and fuller revelation of 
the Father. It was, moreover, almost the first lesson 
that Gentile converts whether to Judaism or to Christ¬ 
ianity had to learn. 


* Cf. e.g. Ps. cxv., a late poem which combines the thoughts of 
Ps. cxlii. with those of 2 Isaiah. 


Chapter VI 


REALISATION THAT GOD IS SPIRIT 

A.— From the Visible Symbol to the Unseen 
Presence. 

The causes which led up to the final establish¬ 
ment of monotheism in the religion of Israel were 
closely related to the apprehension of the spirituality 
of Jahveh. Monotheism must be a spiritual religion, 
and a truly spiritual conception of God cannot but 
emerge into a monotheistic religion. 

• 

Prohibition of images of Jahveh. 

A great step towards dissociating Jahveh from 
material and corporeal conceptions of His nature was 
the prohibition of images or idolatrous symbols of 
Him. The first evidence we have of such a pro¬ 
hibition being in any way enforced is in the reign of 
Hezekiah who, in the course of some kind of religious 
reformation undertaken probably under the influence 
of Isaiah, “ brake in pieces the brazen serpent that 
Moses had made : for until these days the children 
of Israel did burn incense unto it ” (2 Kings xviii. 4.). 

As has been shown* images of Jahveh were in 
common though not universal use until the eighth 

* pp. 26f. 


62 


REALISATION THAT GOD IS SPIRIT 63 


century, and there is no record in the earlier strands 
of history of their being in any way discountenanced 
by the religious leaders and teachers, whether 
prophets, priests or kings ; the first clear recognition 
of them as dangerous to true religion being in Hosea 
(c. 745—c. 725 B.c.) .* In view of this statement it is 
needful to account for the second commandment in 
the decalogue now embodied in JE. (Ex. xx. 4), 
“Thoushalt not make unto thee a graven image, etc/'j 
It seems most likely that what the command origin¬ 
ally forbade was the making and worshipping not of 
any image whatsoever but of images of other gods 
than Jahveh, for the Hebrews were to have “ none 
other gods beside ” Jahveh (Ex. xx. 3), Jahveh 
being “ a jealous god ” (Ex. xx. 5). The association 
of the same ideas in xx. 23 should also be noticed— 
“ Ye shall not make other gods with me : gods of 
silver or gods of gold ye shall not make unto you.” 
If, however, the prohibition of images was intended 
to include images of Jahveh, as well as other kinds, 
then it may be that it was inserted by a later pro¬ 
phetic writer. However that may be, the prohibi¬ 
tion of images of Jahveh is abundantly clear a 
century later than Hosea in Deuteronomy, and it is 
further shown that it is definitely connected with the 
apprehension of JahvelTs spirituality or, at any rate, 
of that negative side of it which one may call His 
non-corporeality. 


* Hosea viii. 4-6 ; xiii. 2. etc. 

f If this is really a prohibition of the use of images of Jahveh, and 
if it is really ancient, then it seems simply to have been set aside, 
ignored and lost sight of. 


64 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


Jahveh, according to Deuteronomy, is not such an 
one as could be figured in any outward representation. 
The outward and material image could in no wise catch 
the likeness of the inward, invisible and spiritual. 

Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves, for ye 
saw no manner of form on the day when Jahveh spake unto 
you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest ye corrupt 
yourselves, and make for yourselves a graven image in the 
form of any figure (Deut. iv. 15, 16). 

There was no longer any place for images in such 
spiritual worship as that of Jahveh. 

Probably the use of images of Jahveh had long 
been discontinued by the more spiritually-minded 
of His people as unnecessary, but now it is definitely 
recognised as unworthy, misleading and altogether 
incongruous. The Deuteronomic school were for 
making a clean sweep of all idolatrous practices and 
for purifying the worship of Jahveh from every 
debasing element in it. Their teaching and policy 
were rigorously enforced by King Josiah. So 
successful was he in respect to the presence of 
outward representations in Jahveh-worship that 
a century later it was possible for the great unknown 
Prophet of the Exile (Second Isaiah) to hold up 
Jahveh in scornful contrast with the idols of the 
other nations as a God in connection with whom 
images were simply unthinkable (v. p. 59f). 

The One Sanctuary. 

The whole Deuteronomic Reformation (under 
Josiah) even apart from its actual war on the use of 


REALISATION THAT GOD IS SPIRIT 65 

images was in the direction of emphasising the 
spirituality of Jahveh, inasmuch as by the suppres¬ 
sion of all the sanctuaries save that of Jerusalem it 
helped to purify His worship and remove from it 
materialistic and degrading associations. The God 
of the One Sanctuary in Jerusalem was more purely 
and spiritually conceived of than ever before. 

No Sanctuary. 

The danger of the “ one sanctuary ” was, however, 
lest Jahveh and His presence should be too closely 
identified with it. But, as Sir G. A. Smith says, “ It 
was well that this temple should enjoy its singular 
rights for only thirty years and then be destroyed 
For a monotheism, however lofty, which depended 
on the existence of any shrine . . . was not a 

purely spiritual faith . . . The city and temple, 

therefore, went up in flames that Israel might learn 
that God is a spirit and dwelleth not in temples made 
with hands.”* In the exile the Jews learned that 
even the One Sanctuary ^vas non-essential, and they 
then had the experience for a time of being a nation 
with a God but without a sanctuary, even as John 
pictured the New Jerusalem as being a “ city 
without a Church.” 

The Empty Shrine. 

At the destruction of Jerusalem the last link with 
the old semi-materialistic conceptions of Jahveh was 
broken; the ark disappeared, which had of old been 
looked upon as a visible substitute for Jahveh’s 

* Isaiah Vol. II, p. 43. 


66 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


personal presence—disappeared never to reappear 
again.* When the temple was rebuilt the inner 
shrine was empty and remained so until the Temple 
was no more. 

B.—From the Anthropomorphic to the Trans¬ 
cendent. 

It has been shown in Chapter IV, Section C, how 
there were signs even in the Jahvistic and Elohistic 
documents of the Pentateuch, especially in the latter, 
that a growing apprehension of the spirituality and 
transcendence of Jahveh and sense of the danger of 
materialistic conceptions of Him had led to an 
attempt to avoid anthropomorphisms in some of the 
narratives. This was especially the case in de¬ 
scriptions of incidents relating to manifestations of 
Jahveh. There was in some of these an evident 
shrinking from giving any impression that Jahveh 
Himself was such that He could be either visible or 
audible. 

The culmination of such attempts is to be seen in 
Ezekiel’s description of the vision of God granted to 
him at the beginning of his ministry and twice there¬ 
after. Ezekiel in his description of this vision was 
apparently trying to express a two-fold impression 
that had been borne in upon his heart and mind, 
(i) the ineffable majesty and transcendence of 
Jahveh and (2) the fact that Jahveh could and did 
manifest His presence unmistakably even in 

* Cf. Jer. iii. 16. It was neither remembered nor missed nor 
made again. 




REALISATION THAT GOD IS SPIRIT 67 


Babylonia (see pp. 76b). The theological language 
of his time was inadequate to convey the latter fact 
clearly without the use of expressions which seemed to 
conflict with the former. The elaborate precautions 
which Ezekiel takes with his language so as not to 
convey a wrong impression or detract from the 
thought of Jahveh’s spirituality and majesty, and 
yet to make his description intensely vivid, are very 
striking and illustrate how far the prophets had 
travelled theologically since the writer of J. used his 
anthropomorphisms with such naive freedom. 

The setting of the vision was a scene character¬ 
istic of the land of Ezekiel’s banishment—a great 
dust storm, shot through and through with the blaze 
of the sun, the whirling columns of sand assuming 
dazzling and fantastic shapes and making an awesome, 
glorious spectacle. As the prophet looked, these 
vague shapes seemed to resolve into definite forms, 
clad in mystic symbolic grandeur. 

Out of its midst appeared the forms of four living creatures 
• • • • 

And in the midst of the living creatures was an appear¬ 
ance like glowing coals of fire like torches and it was moving 
up and down among the living creatures . . . And on 

the heads of the creatures was a firmament .... Above 
the firmament . . . was something that resembled sap¬ 

phire, in the form of a throne, and on a form of a throne was 
a form which resembled a man. . . . From what seemed 

his loins above and below I saw what looked like fire surrounded 
by brightness, like the bow that appears in a cloud in a rainy 
day ; such was the brightness round about. It was the 
appearance of the likeness of the glory of Jahveh. (Ezekiel, 
i. 4, 13, 22, 26-28). 


6 


68 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


It is interesting to notice that in this strange 
attempt to suggest the indescribable transcendent 
majesty of the Most High, Ezekiel makes it quite 
clear that he has not lost hold of the real personality 
of God.* On the other hand, though attempting 
vividly to portray the real presence of God, the 
prophet piles up expressions intended to guard the 
thought of the transcendence and spirituality of 
Jahveh from any intrusion of corporeal or anthropo¬ 
morphic conceptions. More especially is this to be 
seen in the last sentence quoted—“ the appearance 
of the likeness of the glory of Jahveh/' 

C.—From the Outward and Material to the 
Inward and Spiritual. 

Nowhere is the conception of the nature of 
Jahveh so clearly demonstrated as in the estimate of 
the kind of worship which Jahveh chiefly desired and 
which was most suitable for Him. The type of wor¬ 
ship and the value set upon it are sure guides to the 
estimate by the worshippers of the nature and 
character of their deity, though it should be observed 
that in the outward forms of worship practice gener¬ 
ally lags behind doctrine, and external rites are some¬ 
times preserved into which new meanings may be 
read, which are fundamentally different from the 
original significations. 

Sacrifice was, among the Hebrews as among the 
kindred Semitic nations, perhaps the most prominent 
and important element in worship. As we have 

* “ On the form of a throne was a form which resembled a man.” 


REALISATION THAT GOD IS SPIRIT 69 


seen the practice was originally based on low or 
material views of the deity and pre-supposed a God, 
who had a kind of physical kinship or blood-relation¬ 
ship with His people, and, more generally, a God 
who could feast, if not on the solid flesh of the 
offerings, yet on the same things rarified and dis¬ 
tilled into fragrant smoke and savoury odour, and 
who could somehow or other drink the blood, or at 
least the life poured out with it. 

With the possible exception of certain of the 
" communion ” sacrifices,* sacrifices were intended as 
gifts to the god, such as would give him gratification. 
They could scarcely be thought to do so, unless the 
god were really supposed to partake of them in some 
way or make some use of them, unless one takes it 
that they were believed to have some magical efficacy 
whereby the power of the god was enlisted on behalf 
of the sacrificer even apart from the will of the God ; 
but of this idea there would seem to be little or no 
indication in Hebrew religion. 

Gifts are not offered unless it is supposed that they 
have some value for the recipient. They are 
meaningless otherwise. The purpose of gift-sacrifices 
at least was primarily (1) to enlist or retain the favour 
and goodwill of the god, or (2) to appease him if 
offended. The god was, in fact, looked upon some¬ 
what in the light of a sheikh or a prince who required 
to be propitiated with gifts. The more lavish the 
gifts, the better pleased the recipient and the more 
likely to show favour to the donor. 

* Even in the “ communion sacrifices ” the rite was a kind of 
feast in which the deity and the worshippers each had their share. 


70 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


In this way some sacrifices were looked upon as a 
tribute,* others as bribes, others as fines, others as 
substantial tokens of allegiance or of gratitude for 
past favours. (They were never substitutes for wor¬ 
shippers, though not infrequently they were sub¬ 
stitutes for persons belonging to the worshipper.) 
In general, the practice of sacrificing as a material 
method of guaranteeing continuance of divine 
favour was based on the assumptions that the 
deity’s nature was such, (i) that these material 
offerings had a real value for him and that perhaps 
he even needed them, (2) that his attitude towards 
the worshippers could be directly influenced by such 
things. That is what the actual sacrifices meant at 
first to the Hebrews, unless they meant nothing at all 
and were simply considered as some routine the 
meaning of which had been lost but which was never¬ 
theless so important and so well pleasing to Jahveh 
that it could only be neglected at their peril. 

Now there can be little doubt but that there were 
some in Israel from very early times who instinctively 
rejected these ideas even while they continued the 
practice based on them. It is to be noticed that in 
J. and E., though it is the record of the religious 
history of the nation and its ancesters, sacrifice has 
remarkably little place. 

It was Amos, however, who was the great pioneer 
of spirituality in worship. One of the marked 
features of his prophecy is his attack on “ exter- 
nalism,” i.e. the belief that outward ceremonial and 

* Cf. W. Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites , ed. 2. pp. 217, 
226, 236, 240f, 448. 


REALISATION THAT GOD IS SPIRIT 


7i 


ritual, such particularly as sacrifice, was indispensable 
to true religion and worship. He proclaimed with 
no uncertain sound the startling doctrine (which 
very few Jews and not by any means all Christians 
have really believed or acted upon to this very 
day) that rites and ceremonies, sacrifices and incense 
and the whole paraphernalia of what is external in 
worship were altogether the non-essentials. 

I hate, I despise your feasts, 

And I will not smell* the savour of your festivals. 

With your presents f I will not be pleased 

And the peace-offering of your fatlings I will not regard 
with favour. 

Banish from me the din of your songs (t.e. hymns, etc.). 

For to the melody of your lyres I will not listen. 

But let your justice roll on as a flood of water 

And righteousness like an unfailing stream. 

(Am. v. 21-24.) 

Isaiah, in this respect a close follower of Amos, 
uses quite as strong language : 

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me ? 
saith Jahveh. 

I am full of the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of 
fed beasts, 

I delight not in the blood of bullocks or of lambs or of 
he-goats. 

Bring no more vain oblations; 

The odour of sacrifices is an abomination to me ; 

* Notice the scornful reference to the crude and popular belief 
that Jahveh physically partook of the feasts. 

| Notice also the reference to sacrifices as gifts. 


72 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


New moon and sabbath ... I cannot endure. 

. . . Though ye make many prayers, I will not hear, 

Your hands are stained with blood ; wash that ye may be 
clean. 

Cease to do evil, learn to do good. 

(Is. i. 11-15.) 

Similarly Amos iv. 4, 5 ; v. 4, 5. ; Hosea vi. 6 ; 
Micah vi. 6, etc. Both Amos and Isaiah in passages 
such as these seem entirely to repudiate the practice 
of sacrifice in the worship of Jahveh. At first sight 
they appear to advocate a purely ethical and spiritual 
religion from which all outward forms in worship are 
banished as utterly irrelevant and valueless. 

What they certainly did was forcibly to reject 
the popular conceptions of Jahveh which lay behind 
the minds of the sacrificers and provided the chief 
motive for sacrifice. They desired also to show that 
not only sacrifice but all other external elements in 
worship such as singing and music, even prayers and 
fasting, were useless and worse than useless unless 
accompanied by justice, righteousness and morality. 
It did not necessarily follow that if the heart and life 
were right even then there was no place for the out¬ 
ward and visible in worship ; but what value these 
might have, they did not suggest. But if these had 
any place, it followed that it could only be as acces¬ 
sories, the presence or absence of which was non- 
essential. 

Amos and Jeremiah further declared clearly and 
emphatically that sacrifices were not even ordained 
by Jahveh. “ Thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God 
of Israel ... I spake not unto your fathers 


REALISATION THAT GOD IS SPIRIT 73 

nor commanded them in the day that I brought them 
out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt offerings 
and sacrifices " (Jer. vii. 21, 22, see also Amos v. 25). 
“ Sacrifice," as Sir G. A. Smith says, " had never been 
the divine, the revealed element in the religion of 
Jahveh. Nevertheless, before Amos no prophet in 
Israel appears to have said so."* This great move¬ 
ment, one of the most remarkable in the history of 
religion, towards a wholly spiritual worship based on 
a wholly spiritual conception of God, never came to 
full fruition in the life of the Jewish nation. During 
the exile, the Jews were compelled to do without 
sacrifice and the regulation ceremonials in their 
worship. In practice they found they could get on 
without them. But when opportunity came and 
the temple was rebuilt the sacrificial system which 
had been carefully re-elaboratedf was recommenced, 
a proceeding which seems to have been countenanced 
by and even supported by the prophets both exilic 
and post-exilic. It may be that they recognised that 
the nation was not yet ripe for so drastic a break as 
the abolition of the outward forms of worship handed 
down from their fathers. But though the practice 
of sacrifices continued without further challenge, the 
realisation gained ground that Jahveh s supreme 
demand in worship was righteousness, justice and 
mercy, the soul full of gratitude and the broken 

* G. A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets , Vol. I. p. 104. 

+ This is embodied in the Priestly Code. Ihis code represents a 
retrogressive movement as regards the principle of the Pre-exilic 
Prophets. But on the other hand it probably represents a great 
advance in the purity and religious significance of popular worship 
and ritual. 


74 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


penitent heart. There is evidence that some at least 
recognised that these were the sacrifices truly accept¬ 
able unto Jahveh. This is very beautifully ex¬ 
pressed in not a few of the Psalms which reflect the 
religious conviction and experience of these latex 
times. 

I will magnify Him with thanksgiving and it will please 
Jahveh better than an ox or a bullock that hath horns and 
hoofs (Ps. lxix. 30). 

Sacrifice and offering thou hast no delight in ; mine ears 
hast thou opened: 

Burnt offering and sin offering thou hast not required. 

Then said I, Lo I come : in the roll of the book it is written 
of me, 

I delight to do thy will, O God. 

(Ps. xl. 6, etc.) 

There is no true worship of God apart from the 
offering of heart and will to Him. 

And lastly we may quote the curiously incongru¬ 
ous section of Ps. li. 15-end, when there is an approval 
of ceremonial sacrifices immediately following a 
statement that sacrifices are unnecessary and that the 
true sacrifices are those of the spirit. 

For thou delightest not in sacrifice, else would I give it: 

Thou hast no pleasure in burnt offering. 

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: 

A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not 
despise. 

Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion; 

Then shalt thou delight in proper sacrifices, 

In burnt offering and whole burnt offering. 

Then shall they offer bullocks upon thy altar. 

It should be observed that the spirituality of God 
as here illustrated is primarily ethical rather than 


REALISATION THAT GOD IS SPIRIT 75 

metaphysical, a perception of the heart rather than 
a reflection of the intellect. 

There are few things in which the greater 
prophets showed themselves more truly the fore¬ 
runners of Jesus and the pioneers of His work and 
teaching than in this great assault of theirs upon the 
material as opposed to the spiritual element in wor¬ 
ship, and the outward as opposed to the inward. 
They in very truth prepared the way for Christianity, 
the most spiritual of all religions, and for Him whose 
teaching as to worship might be summed up in His 
pregnant saying “ God is Spirit, and they that worship 
Him must worship in spirit and in truth.” 


Chapter VII 


UNIVERSALITY OF GOD 
A. —From the Local to the Universal. 

Closely related to the unity and spirituality of 
God was the apprehension of His universality. 

The great discovery which the Hebrew Prophets 
ultimately made with regard to Jahveh was that 
distance could not separate them from His presence. 
The doctrine of the Divine omnipresence was for 
them a fact of religion of the most vital importance. 

It has already been shown how the territorial 
view of God was the prevailing one among the 
Hebrews and how they also tended to localise 
Jahveh at certain shrines and sacred places, where 
He might be found and from whence occasionally He 
issued to succour His people or otherwise manifest 
Himself. We have seen, too, how JE is not alto¬ 
gether hampered by these local and territorial ideas. 
Indeed, nearly all the prophetic writers break through 
them somewhere or other, though as a rule incident¬ 
ally, and generally as if without realising the full 
bearing of their inconsistency with the common 
view. 

The limitation of worship to the one sanctuary, 
valuable though it was in other ways, helped further 


76 


UNIVERSALITY OF GOD 


77 


to limit and localise the presence of Jahveh. The 
temple at Jerusalem was looked upon as the one 
earthly abiding-place of Jahveh, absence from which 
practically meant absence from Jahveh’s presence, 
for there “ He had made His name to dwell/' 
Consequently exile from Jerusalem was generally 
felt to mean exile from Jahveh. Babylonia, for 
example, was thought to be far from His presence 
and probably beyond the sphere of His effective 
influence. 

It fell to the prophet Ezekiel, a man whose heart¬ 
strings were knit to the sanctuary at Jerusalem and 
whose dream was its restoration with the “ glory of 
Jahveh filling the House ”—it fell to him to proclaim 
to his fellow captives that Jahveh was still to be found 
by those of His people who sought for Him even in 
that foreign land to which they had been forced 
and to proclaim to them that He was not far from 
any one of them. 

Thereupon the word of Jahveh came unto me, Son 
of man and all ye exiled Israelites, of whom those who 
are dwelling in Jerusalem say “Far away are ye from 
Jahveh ” ! . . . Thus saith Jahveh I have indeed sent 

them far away among the nations. . . . but I will be 

their sanctuary ... in the lands into which they have 
come (Ezek. xi. 14-16). 

To Ezekiel himself also came an overwhelming 
personal experience that Jahveh could and did 
reveal His presence and manifest His glory in 
other places than the sanctuary and in other lands 
than Canaan—even in a profane land. This he has 
recorded and tried to describe in his book (Ez. i. 1 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


78 

also viii.-xi., and xl.-xlviii.). He is probably not the 
first prophet who believed that this was possible, 
but he was the first of whom we know who found it 
true for himself, and thus it was he who was able to 
teach the lesson to Israel. 

The earliest prophet, who, in a sense, began to see 
and preach the omnipresence of Jahveh, was Amos,— 
a prophet who, as we shall see, had a particularly 
wide outlook and an amazingly broad view of God. 
It is, with him, far from a comforting doctrine. His 
clearest statement is contained in the last chapter of 
his book. The thought there expressed is that none 
of the sinful people of North Israel whom he is 
addressing can possibly hope to escape from Jahveh. 
His message was that it was impossible for any of 
them to get out of reach of the arm of Jahveh’s 
vengeance ; that like Nemesis He would dog their 
steps wherever they might go and would search them 
out wherever they might attempt to hide. In itself 
the passage can hardly be taken as teaching or as 
necessarily implying the universal presence of 
Jahveh. It is a great step in that direction, though 
much of it is poetic hyperbole, and both the thought 
and language in it were later readily developed into 
a most comprehensive statement of that doctrine. 

Not one of them shall escape . . . 

If they dig through to Sheol, 

Thence will my hand take them; 

And if they climb up to the sky, 

Thence will I bring them down. 

And if they hide themselves on the top of Carmel,* 

* Carmel was covered with caves and hiding places. 


UNIVERSALITY OF GOD 


79 


Thence will I search them out and take them. 

And if they hide out of my sight at the bottom of the sea, 
Thence will I command the sea-serpent to bite them. 

And if they go into captivity before their enemies, 

Thence will I command the sword to slay them. 

(Amos ix. 1-4.) 

Jeremiah echoes Amos’ thought of Jahveh as 
one who cannot be escaped wherever a man may be, 
but with him comes the corollary of the “ every- 
whereness ” of Jahveh. 

Am I a God near by and not a God far off ? 

Can a man hide himself in secret places and I not see him ? 
Do not I fill Heaven and Earth ? 

(Jer. xxiii. 23, 24.) 

A later post-exilic writer (Second Isaiah) takes up 
Jeremiah’s latter thought and still further develops 
it— 


Thus saith Jahveh, Heaven is my throne,* 

And the earth my footstool, 

and then proceeds to link this on to the conception 
of Jahveh as Creator of the Universe, which should 
imply His omnipresence though not necessarily His 
universal accessibility ; and he further connects, or 
rather contrasts, it with the idea of a local habitation 
of such a God as Jahveh : 

What manner of house is it that ye would build for me ? 

At what manner of place is my habitation ? 

All these my hand hath made, 

And all these are mine, is Jahveh’s oracle. 

(Is. lxvi. i, 2 a) 

* Cf. Ps. xi. 4. 


8o 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


There is a curious attempt as it were to answer 
such a question as this, or at least to harmonise the 
doctrine of the universal presence of Jahveh with the 
belief that His presence was also somehow localised 
at the Temple. It is a compromise but shows how 
nearly the former belief ousted the latter altogether. 
The Jews, however, clung to the latter belief at all 
costs. 

But will God in very deed dwell on the earth ? Behold, 
heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee, how 
much less this house, which I have builded . . . May 

Thine eyes be open towards this house day and night, even 
towards the place whereof Thou said My Name shall be there ; 
to hearken unto the prayer which Thy servant shall pray 
towards this place, . . . When they pray towards this 

place, yea, hear Thou in heaven Thy dwelling place, and when 
Thou hearest forgive.* 

(i Kings, viii. 27, 29, 30 b. cf. also v. 48.) 

Perhaps the fullest expression of belief in the 
universality of Jahveh’s presence is to be found in 
Ps. cxxxix, one of the latest of the Psalms. It is 
clearly suggested by the Amos passage both in 
thought and imagery. But while the words of the 
Psalmist are less original, they go far beyond the 
thoughts of Amos, for they are written in the light of 
a wider and fuller experience of God, and the thought 
of that besetting presence of God which cannot be 
eluded has with the Psalmist been transformed from 


* The words are put into the mouth of Solomon in his prayer at 
the Dedication of the Temple, but they were actually composed as 
late as the Exile. 


UNIVERSALITY OF GOD 


81 


a terror to a subject of glad comfort and reverent 
exultation. 

Thou hast beset me behind and before; 

Upon me thou hast laid thy hand. . 

Whither shall I go from thy spirit ? 

Or whither shall I flee from thy presence ? 

If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there : 

If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, thou art there. 

If I take the wings of the morning. 

And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 

Even there shall thy hand lead me, 

And thy right hand shall hold me. 

(Ps. cxxxix. 5, 7-10.) 


B.—From the Land of the Living to the Regions 
Beyond. 

A curious conception of the restriction of the 
sphere of Jahveh’s presence and activities which per¬ 
sisted far longer than the idea that He was terri¬ 
torially limited is to be found in most Old Testament 
references to the abode of the Dead. 

There was amongst the Hebrews no categorical 
denial of any kind of existence for anyone after 
death, no assertion of annihilation. There was rather 
a vague and misty notion that some part of a man's 
being lived on or rather continued to exist in a place 
usually designated as Sheol, that the dead con¬ 
tinued there as bloodless, i.e. lifeless, shadows of their 
former selves for an undefined age, simply existing 
and cut off from all relations with the upper world 
or with Jahveh. 


82 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


A conception of paradise or heaven as the abode 
of the blessed dead, so far as the Old Testament 
shows us, simply did not exist, though there was 
some kind of idea, perhaps a somewhat later develop¬ 
ment, that the very wicked had an especially low 
place in Sheol, called Abaddon. 

Sheol was believed by the Hebrews, as by the other 
Semitic races, to be a region situated under the earth, 
the earth of course being thought of as flat. The 
common Semitic idea was that the Universe was 
divided into three spheres—Heaven the abode of 
the gods, Earth the abode of Mankind, and “ under 
the earth ” or Sheol the abode of the Dead.* In 
the Babylonian Pantheon the various gods and 
goddesses had their several spheres allotted to them; 
some belonged to heaven, some to earth, some to 
Sheol. Each god was supposed to be limited to its 
own particular sphere. Especially was this the case 
with regard to the lower world. The gods of living 
men were debarred from any interference with the 
abode of the dead, they were jealously shut out from 
it. Ishtar the goddess of Love is an exception that 
clearly proves the rule. She was once admitted to 
Sheol: 

The house from which he who enters never returns; 

The house where he who enters is deprived of light; 

Where dust is their sustenance, their food clay, 

Light they see not. In darkness do they sit, 

Where over door and bolt is spread the Dust.J 

* Cf. St. Paul’s phrase “Things in heaven and things on earth 
and things under the earth.” Phil. ii. io. 

f Ishtar’s Descent into Sheol cf. Rogers, op. cit. p. 122. Cf. 
Job x. 21. 


UNIVERSALITY OF GOD 


83 


As Ishtar penetrated further and further in, she was 
gradually stripped of everything. For in Sheol 
she had neither power nor authority. Meanwhile 
on earth during her absence her rule automatically 
ceased, and none were subject to her. 

Similar ideas held good throughout the Semitic 
world and in essence were shared, apparently without 
question, by the Hebrews. It was taken for granted 
by them that Jahveh’s sphere of influence, much 
more His presence, did not extend to Sheol.* Even 
when they had arrived at the belief in His universal 
accessibility and presence, they instinctively thought 
of them as limited to earth and heaven. 

These conceptions seem to have been normal even 
amongst prophets and psalmists. They took for 
granted that, after death, when Sheol had claimed 
its own, there could be no more connection with 
Jahveh. That was over once and for all. The 
dwellers among the inhabitants of the lower world 
were cut off from His presence and His loving¬ 
kindness. 

{a) Return, O Lord, deliver my soul; 

Save me for Thy lovingkindness sake, 

For in death there is no remembrance of Thee : 

In Sheol who shall give Thee thanks ? 

(Ps. vi. 4f ) 

(b) Incline Thine ear unto my cry; 

For my soul is full of troubles ; 

And my life draweth nigh unto Sheol. 

I am counted with them that go down to the Pit, 

Cast away among the dead 

Like the slain that lie in the grave, 

* The statement in Amos ix. 1 is almost certainly rhetorical 
and not intended literally. 


7 


8 4 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


Whom Thou rememberest no more ; 

And they are cut off from Thy hand. 

Wilt Thou show wonders to the dead ? 

Shall the Shades arise and praise Thee ? 

Shall Thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave, 

Or Thy faithfulness in Abaddon ? 

(Ps. lxxxviii, 2-5, 10, 11.) 

No wonder the godly entreated Jahveh to save them 
from the grave and to put death off as far as possible ! 

No one could be exempt from this fate. 

What man is he that shall live and not see death ? 

That shall deliver his soul from the power of Sheol ? 

(Ps. Ixxxix. 48.) 

Furthermore there was no hope that anyone 
who had once been delivered to the power of Sheol 
might escape. 

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will 
sprout again . . 

But man dieth and lieth low, 

Yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he ? 

Till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, 

Nor be roused out of sleep. 

If man, too, might die and live again, 

All the days of my appointed time would I wait, 

Till my release should come. 

(Job xiv. 7, 10, 12, 14.) 

So said Job, taking it for granted that his longing 
that Sheol might not be the end of everything for him 
was in the nature of things quite impossible of 
realisation. 

Only in a very few cases in the Old Testament are 
there signs of the breaking through of this limitation, 
existing in men’s minds, to Jahveh’s relations with 
men and to the universality of His presence and 
power in the whole universe as then conceived. 


UNIVERSALITY OF GOD 


85 


Yet a breaking through there was, which, tenta¬ 
tive and hesitating though it seemed, proved to be 
pioneer work in the direction of causing the vast 
kingdom of departed souls to be recognised as also 
belonging to the universal empire of Jahveh. 

The most significant of the instances in question 
may be found in Pss. xlix. 15 ; lxxiii. 24, and xvi. 
10, 11.* 

But God shall redeem my soul from the power of Sheol 
when it {i.e. Sheol) taketh me. 

(Ps. xlix. 15.) 

Or, as it may be rendered, 

For He {i.e., Jahveh) shall take me. 

The words occur in a Psalm, the theme of 
which is that all men alike are as the beasts that 
perish, and that death is the inevitable lot of 
everyone rich and poor, wise and foolish, alike. 
The sentence may mean merely that “ God will 
ransom the writer from death, even when he is being 
received, as it were, by the grave.” Death will 
overtake others, the brutish and wicked and so 
forth, but he will be spared. That is the construction 
put upon the passage by most moderns. 

But another explanation is possible. If we accept 

the alternative rendering “ he shall take me,” 

there may perhaps be a reference here to the old 

legend about Enoch who walked with God and was 

not, because God took him. Enoch and Elijah are 

the only two men of whom it is recorded in the Old 

Testament that they escaped death. God took 

* Others that may be mentioned are Jobxix. 25-27 (see page 127) 
and Ps. xvii. 15. 


86 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


them both, and according to the stories they never 
went to Sheol at all. 

Here, then, we have perhaps someone who also 
had walked with God, to whom had come the thought 
that what had happened in one case might happen in 
another, and that there might be, indeed had been, 
a few exceptions to the great rule that Sheol and 
the grave claim all men, great and small, wise and 
foolish, wicked and good. 

The thought is, it is true, contrary to the whole 
tenor of the Psalm, but it may be a gloss (as is sus¬ 
pected on other grounds also), which has been 
written in the margin of the Psalm, by someone, 
who by a mighty effort of faith or sudden illumina¬ 
tion, or perhaps by both, saw further and deeper 
than the writer of the original psalm. It is a strange 
hope bordering almost on absurdity that one should 
escape death altogether, and that somehow God would 
take one to Him alive. Yet he who wrote it, in 
feeling after and into the truth of God, had almost 
reached the glorious truth of immortality,—or shall 
we say that he laid hold of something better of which 
immortality is but a necessary corollary ? 

In Psalm lxxiii. also it may be that we have 
someone who has caught a glimpse of the possi¬ 
bility of life beyond for those who fear Jahveh in this 
life. Here again the interpretation and translation 
of the passage are uncertain. 

23 Nevertheless, I am continually with thee: 

Thou hast holden my right hand. 

24 Thou shalt guide me by thy counsel, 

And afterwards receive (take) me into glory 
(gloriously). 


UNIVERSALITY OF GOD 


87 


This might merely mean “ thou wilt honour and 
glorify me at some future time,” the psalmist coming 
to think that as the latter end of the prosperous 
wicked will be calamity and dishonour, so his own 
latter end will on the other hand be glory and honour. 
This conception fits in quite well with the argument 
of the Psalm. 

And yet the phrase is an unusual one, and one 
cannot help feeling that the satisfactory attainment 
of earthly honour and glory or even of a peaceful and 
honoured death-bed, is rather a sudden descent 
from the exalted sense of communion with God, 
which had just been expressed in the words— 

Nevertheless I am with thee continually: 

Thou hoidest my hand. 

It really fits in better to take it that the Psalmist 
in his realisation of the joy of the presence of God 
had found it impossible to limit it to this life only, 
and that he too hazards the suggestion that God might 
“ take ” him as he " took ” Enoch. The sense of 
fellowship with God had overflowed into the after¬ 
ward, obliterating the usual limitations of death and 
Sheol. There is no reasoned doctrine here, nothing 
but a glorious glimpse into eternity. 

In Psalm xvi. we are more nearly sure than 
elsewhere that we are with someone who is well on 
the road in the right direction: 

8 I have set the Lord always before me; 

Because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. 

10 For thou wilt not leave my soul ( i.e . me) to Sheol, 

Thou wilt not suffer thy pious (loyal) one to see the 
Pit (R.V. Corruption). 


88 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


Thou wilt make known to me the path of life. 

Fulness of gladness is in thy presence, 

Loveliness is on thy right hand forever. 

As in the other passage, the interpretation is not 
certain. It may merely mean the assurance that 
Jahveh will save his life and will not abandon him to 
death. The path of life would then refer to this life. 
But this is not really satisfactory. What seems 
more likely is that the writer expects to die and go to 
Sheol, but he cannot believe Sheol is out of Jahveh’s 
reach or that Jahveh will leave him even there. 
Even in Sheol he will be shown the way to the 
presence of Jahveh (the path of life), and the 
presence of Jahveh is to him the fulness of gladness 
and desirable above all else. 

Here again we find that the Psalmist has gone 
along the same road trodden by the last two. Com¬ 
munion with God in this life was the way by which he 
reached assurance as to death and afterward. He 
too knew nothing of heaven, probably nothing about 
resurrection from the dead. But he had reached 
that point when, having once tasted of the presence 
of God, he could not believe that even Sheol could 
bring his experience of it to an end. In effect he 
had almost anticipated St. Paul when he said, 

I am persuaded that neither death . . . nor 
things to come . . . nor depth . . . shall be 
able to separate us from the love of God. 

(Rom. viii. 38, 39.) 

There are three other passages, all very late,* 
which show that before our Old Testament was quite 

* None of them probably earlier than the second century b.c. 


UNIVERSALITY OF GOD 89 

completed the conception of some kind of resurrection 
from the dead had come into being. 

(a) Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise. 

Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust. * 

(Is. xxvi. 19.) 

(, b ) And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth, 
shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to 
shame and everlasting contempt. (Dan. xii. 2.) 

(c) He hath swallowed up Death forever: 

And the Lord Jahveh will wipe away tears from all 
faces. (Is. xxv. 8.) 

A hope such as this, however it may have been 
arrived at, implies that the realm of the dead was no 
longer looked upon as excluded from the sphere of 
Jahveil’s sovereign power and might. In other 
words it shows that by this time it was realised, at 
least in the circle from which these writings emanated, 
that Jahveh’s universality is not limited by death 
any more than by territorial boundaries. 

C.—From the Tribal to the Universal. 

The universality of God is not merely to be con¬ 
ceived of spatially. It goes even deeper, it must be 
considered ethically. It is possible to conceive of a 
being who pervades the universe and yet whose 
interest is restricted and limited to a select few, even 
as in the human sphere it is possible for a man to be a 
world-wide traveller and yet be narrow-minded and 
narrow-hearted. 

* This is held by many scholars to be a poetical reference to the 
hope of a political resurrection for the Jews. Verse 14 in the same 
chapter curiously enough says the exact opposite viz., the dead shall 
not live again, the shades shall not rise. 


9 ° 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


The current belief of the Early Hebrews, like that 
of other Semitic nations, was that the interests of 
their God were bound up with the interests of the 
their nation, especially perhaps with their political 
interests. He was their God, and they were His 
people, whom He was bound to protect and favour, 
and on whose side He was sure to range Himself 
when the interest of any other nation conflicted with 
theirs. Insofar as a God could be looked upon as 
the property of His worshippers, Jahveh was 
looked upon as the exclusive property of Israel. 
They believed they had the sole monopoly of His 
support and interest. 

Something like this was an inevitable stage in 
the religious life of the nation, but a stage which in 
the interests of religion and revelation had to be left 
behind. As a matter of fact, Judaism never quite 
rid itself of some such conception of Jahveh’s relation 
to His people ; and it was one of the things which our 
Lord (and later St. Paul) had to combat vehemently. 
Indeed, His opposition to the " nationalism ” of the 
Jewish people was one of the causes which led up to 
His death. 

Not all the prophets by any means rose above it, 
though most of them did much to modify it. The 
great pioneer of the struggle against this “ national ” 
or “ tribal ” view of God was Amos. There can be 
little doubt that he was not a man who had lived all 
his life in a little corner of Palestine out of touch 
with the rest of the world. Probably he had travelled 
about in one country or another, and he had kept his 
eyes and his ears open. His outlook on the nations 


UNIVERSALITY OF GOD 


9i 


is never parochial, and his conception of God is not 
parochial either. He saw clearly into the great fact 
that even as Righteousness is a thing which tran¬ 
scends tribal and national bounds and must needs 
have some kind of recognition in every nation, so 
also Jahveh transcends tribal and national bounds. 
Israel was not in his eyes the only nation which 
belonged to Jahveh. 

Are ye not as the Cushites (Ethiopians) to me, O Israel ? 

Did I not bring up Israel out of the land of Egypt 

And the Philistines from Caphtor (Crete) 

And Aram (Syria) from Kir (Armenia ?) ? (Amos ix. 7, 8.) 

Amos in those words seems to put Israel on a 
level, in the eyes of Jahveh, with the far off Ethiopians, 
the remotest nation of those that had come into 
his ken, and also with “ the Philistines and the 
Syrians ” the two chief foes of Israel (and therefore 
according to the tribal theory of God, the two chief 
foes of Jahveh). With regard to these latter he is 
actually suggesting that even as Jahveh had brought 
Israel from Eygpt to the promised land, which to 
them was the greatest proof that He was their 
champion and theirs alone, so also had He guided these 
two alien and hostile peoples to the lands which they 
now inhabited. In other words, Amos had recognised 
that Jahveh was not the God of Israel alone but of 
each of the other nations, and that their concerns 
were His concerns too, and that He guided their 
movements even though they might not be aware 
of it. 

The clearest utterance of this new teaching and 
its consequences for Israel is in a poem, which is 


92 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


preserved in Amos i. 3-iii. 2, where the prophet tells 
of judgment which was soon to overtake the nations 
neighbouring to Israel, and that not because of their 
hostility to Israel in particular but because of their 
various offences against what was universally recog¬ 
nised as right conduct. Damascus and Gaza, (Tyre*), 
(Edom*), Ammon, Moab (and Judah*) pass in rapid 
review before the prophet, and the sentence of con¬ 
demnation and punishment is given in the self-same 
terms to each, much, doubtless, to the satisfaction of 
the listening Israelites. “ Thus saith Jahveh, for three 
transgressions of Damascus, yea for four, I will not 
turn it (the punishment) back because— ” and then 
follows the statement of the particular crime. But 
to the astonishment and chagrin of the North 
Israelites, when their four rivals had been satis¬ 
factorily condemned, the same doom was pronounced 
against themselves for the self-same reasons, even 
though Jahveh was their own special God and had 
championed them in times past. 

But hear this word which Jahveh has spoken against you, 
O Israelites, against the whole race that I brought up out of 
the land of Egypt. You only have I known of all the races 
of the earth, therefore will I visit upon you all your iniquities. 
(Amos iii. 1, 2). 

The particularistic tribal point of view almost 
inevitably carried with it the belief that Jahveh 
would act towards His own nation more leniently 
than towards the other nations. Amos was appar¬ 
ently the first to see that Jahveh was no respecter 

* The passages dealing with Tyre, Edom and Judah are probably 
later additions than the original poem. 


UNIVERSALITY OF GOD 


93 


of persons nor yet of nations, and that if He had given 
to Israel special privileges in that they alone had 
known Him, their punishment must in fairness to the 
other “ races of the earth ” be proportionally heavier. 
Amos was enabled to see Jahveh as a God who was 
equally fair to all the nations of the earth in His 
moral judgments and condemnations, as One who 
treated all alike. None of the later prophets stated 
the case against the parochial view of Jahveh more 
forcibly or uncompromisingly than Amos. It was 
only to the content of this ethical universality of 
Jahveh that anything really needed to be added. 

It is characteristic of Amos that it was the 
uncompromising righteousness and fairness of Jahveh 
which he recognised to be universal ; and that it was 
in the matter of judgment and doom, that he rejected 
the parochial and tribal view of Jahveh's dealings. 
Other prophets came gradually to understand 
that the converse was also true. For the scope of 
Jahveh’s love and mercy as well as of His righteous 
judgments was gradually seen to extend in ever 
widening circles, till in Jesus it was perceived that 
none were left outside, and that in His heart was room 
for all the world. This gradual apprehension of the 
breadth of the love of God and realisation of the 
universal scope of His gracious purposes, though an 
integral part of the study of the Universality of God, 
must be reserved for separate treatment later on. 


Chapter VIII 


THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD 

A.—The Significance of the Righteousness of 
God. 

The realisation of the fact that Jahveh was a 
righteous God is to be seen in several ways, especially 
in the insistent teaching of the prophets : (i) that 
He demanded Righteousness from His people ; (2) 
that He persistently endeavoured to make His 
people righteous ; (3) that His own dealings with 
His people were based on Righteousness. 

1. Jahveh*s demand for righteousness from His people . 

In the forefront of the teaching of the prophets 
from Amos onwards as we have already seen was 
the fact that Jahveh’s primary demand from His 
people was righteousness, especially social righteous¬ 
ness. All the greater prophets recognised this fully, 
and bent all their energies to impress it on the people. 
The obligations of worship, they taught, at all events 
of the externalities of worship, were as nothing 
besides this supreme obligation. Without this 
righteousness nothing was acceptable to Jahveh. 
The magnitude of the break with the current non- 
ethical, non-moral and often immoral conceptions of 


94 


THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD 


95 


religion is hard to realise. The religion of Jahveh, 
according to the prophets was primarily moral,— 
a religion concerned with right and wrong conduct. 
They recognised that Jahveh’s covenant with His 
people was on a moral basis and that loyalty and 
allegiance to Him consisted mainly in the con¬ 
serving of righteousness and justice, mercy and truth 
in their midst. 

‘‘Away with your ceremonies and sacrifices,” 
says Amos, “ but let justice roll down as waters, and 
righteousness as a mighty stream ” (Amos v. 24). 
And again “thus” saith Jahveh, “ For three trans¬ 
gressions, yea, for four, I will not turn away their 
punishment, because they have sold the righteous for 
silver and the needy for a pair of shoes, and pant 
after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor and 
turn aside the way of the meek ” (Amos ii. 6). 
“ When ye spread forth your hands ” is Isaiah’s 
message, “ I (Jahveh) will hide mine eyes from you ; 
yea, when ye make many prayers I will not hear, 
your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you 
clean, put away the evil of your doings from before 
mine eyes ; cease to do evil, learn to do well ; seek 
justice, release the oppressed, judge the fatherless, 
plead for the widow” (Is. i. 15-17). “Woe unto 
them that call evil good, and good evil . . Woe 

unto them that justify the wicked for reward. . . 

Therefore is the anger of Jahveh kindled ” (Is. v. 
20, 23, 25). “He (Jahveh) looked for justice, but 
behold oppression ; for righteousness, but behold a 
cry” (Is. v. 7.). It is not necessary to multiply 
examples. Jahveh, according to these prophets and 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


96 

most of the others, is a God of Righteousness in the 
sense that His chief desire is to find righteousness 
in the life and conduct of His people, and that 
above all things He hates and detests to find 
unrighteousness and injustice practised by them. 

Amos, as we have seen, further showed that these 
moral requirements of Jahveh were not confined to 
the narrow limits of Israel but extended even to 
other nations as well. In short he believed and 
taught that Jahveh always upheld the moral order 
of the universe, the moral order which is universally 
recognised in the hearts and consciences of men. 

There is in Amos and Isaiah no appeal to any 
written Code of Laws as the standard of righteous¬ 
ness. Their appeal was rather to men’s moral sense 
and to the promptings of their higher natures, and 
their message was practically that Jahveh’s require¬ 
ments were in accord with these, and that to act 
contrary to these was to sin against Jahveh as the 
God of Righteousness. These prophets also did 
much to quicken and educate men’s consciences, 
mainly perhaps by helping them to see the heinous¬ 
ness of tampering in conduct with their innate sense 
of right and wrong. The Book of Deuteronomy 
and also the Holiness Code (Lev. xvii-xxvi.) did not a 
little towards educating the conscience of the nation 
by setting forth clearly and precisely a remarkably 
high standard of conduct and life, which was largely 
based on prophetic teaching, and gave to the ordinary 
man some idea of what righteousness not only could 
mean but ought to mean for himself as a worshipper of 
of Jahveh. The precepts as to righteous conduct in 


THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD 


97 


both books are written as if they were the direct 
commands of Jahveh word for word, with the 
promises of Jahveh’s blessing and approval if they are 
complied with and the threat of His anger and 
punishment if they are disobeyed. One or two of 
the commands may be cited to show how high a stan¬ 
dard of righteousness was reached. 

This to judges : 

Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect 
persons ; neither shalt thou take a gift, for a gift doth blind 
the eye of the wise and pervert the cause of the righteous. 
Justice, justice shalt thou follow (Deut. xvi. 19, 20). 

To all men : 

Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ass or his ox fallen down 
by the way and hide thyself from them : thou shalt surely 
help him to lift them up again (Deut. xxii. 4). When thou 
reapest thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in 
the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it; it shall be for the 
stranger and the fatherless and the widow; that J ahveh, thy 
God, may bless thee and all the works of thine hands (Deut. 
xxiv. 19). 

Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and 
needy. . . . in his day thou shalt give him his hire . . . 

for he is poor and setteth his heart upon it; lest he cry against 
thee unto Jahveh, and it be sin unto thee (Deut. xxiv. 14). 

But the crown and summary of all is in the 
Holiness code,—“ Thou shalt love thy neighbour as 
thyself ; I am Jahveh ” (Lev. xix. 18), and the less 
known, though in some ways as wonderful, applica¬ 
tion of the same thought: " the stranger that 

sojourneth with you shall be unto you, as the 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


98 

home-born among you and thou shalt love him as 
thyself, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt : 
I am Jahveh, your God ” (Lev. xix. 34). 

Along with these splendid practical instances of 
the kind of righteous dealing which Jahveh required 
were other commands which are on a much lower 
level, though many of them showed an advance on 
current practices. There were also many regulations 
and ordinances which were purely civil or ceremonial 
and were not directly connected with morality and 
righteousness. Unfortunately, in the endeavour to 
regulate the life of the community on the lines laid 
down in these codes, the codes themselves in their 
entirety with their mixture of ethical and ceremonial, 
and of higher and lower morality, came to be taken as 
the verbally inspired and literal statement of Jahveh's 
commands to His people, and the righteousness 
which He required was thought to consist in the 
literal fulfilment of the contents, ceremonial, civil 
and ethical alike of these law books. It was the 
superficial legalism which ensued and the consequent 
pious juggling with the letter of the law, which our 
Lord had later to combat and from which He had to 
set men free. The righteousness which God looks for 
is a deeper and higher thing than obedience to any 
written code. It is obedience to the highest, even if 
that should chance to conflict with literal adherence to 
the best of written codes. The truest righteousness 
does not lie in submission to any external authority, 
however lofty its credentials, but in free obedience 
to that which is recognised by heart and conscience 
to be highest and best. This the messages of the 


THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD 


99 

greater pre-exilic prophets imply, though they do 
not state it explicitly. 

It is remarkable that though many passages in 
Deuteronomy give one quite the opposite impression, 
yet the book contains a passage stating very simply 
this higher view of righteousness required by Jahveh.* 

For this commandment, which I command thee this day, 
is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. It is not in Heaven 
that thou shouldest say, who shall go up for us to heaven and 
bring it unto us, and make us to hear it that we may do it. 
Neither is it beyond the sea . . . But the word is very 

nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart that thou 
mayest do itf (Deut. xxx. n-14). 

We find, then, that the loftiest prophetic teaching 
was that it was righteousness which Jahveh demanded 
from His people, and that this righteousness was 
chiefly conceived of as life lived in accordance with the 
moral order, which is revealed in the hearts and con¬ 
sciences of men and there instinctively approved. 

2. Jahveh’s endeavours to make His people righteous. 

But Jahveh was shown to be a God of Righteous¬ 
ness, not only by the fact that He demanded right¬ 
eousness, but by the further fact that He used every 
means to build up His people in righteousness. 

“ What,” Isaiah represents Jahveh as saying, 
“ What could have been done more to my vineyard 

* The passage came from the pen of one of the later Deuteronomic 
writers. 

f Cf. also Jer. xxxi. 33. “I will put my law in their inward 
parts and in their heart will I write it.” 


8 


100 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


that I have not done in it ? I looked that it should 
bring forth grapes . . . He looked for justice 

. . . for righteousness ” (Is. v. 4, 7). 

The purposes which He was working out were 
mainly towards that end. Through His prophets He 
strove to lead and woo His people to love goodness 
and to turn from evil ways. If He sent calamities 
upon them, it was that they might learn to keep His 
commandments.* The prophets showed Jahveh to 
be engaged in a moral warfare, combating wickedness 
wherever He found it, but more than that, as Hosea 
shows (cf. chapter xi.), fighting a hard battle, grievous 
to Himself, with the sin and unrighteousness in the 
heart of His beloved people. All this presupposes 
that Jahveh was Himself a Being in whom righteous¬ 
ness was a fundamental attribute, f 

3. The Righteousness of Jahveh’s Character and of 
His dealings. 

In addition to these implicit indications that 
Jahveh was held to be a righteous being by the 
prophets and saints of the Old Testament, explicit 
reference is also made continually to the fact of His 
own personal righteousness. It is His most prominent 
moral attribute in the descriptions of Him found in 
both Psalmist and Prophet. 

The Rock, his work is perfect: 

For all his ways are judgment {just) : 

A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, 

Righteous and upright is He. (Deut. xxxii. 4.) 

* Deut. viii. 2, 3, 5, 6. 

t Cf. Skinner, Hastings' Bible Dictionary IV., p. 274. 


THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD 


IOI 


Judge me, O God, according to thy righteousness. 

(Ps. xxxv. 24.) 

My tongue shall talk of thy righteousness 

And of thy praise all the day long. 

(Ps. xxxv. 28.) 

Thy righteousness is like the mountains. 

(Ps. xxxvi. 6.) 

Thy right hand is full of righteousness. 

(Ps. xlviii. 10.) 

I am Jahveh, who exercise lovingkindness, judgment and 
righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight. 

(Jer. ix. 24.) 

We find that Righteousness was recognised to 
be an essential element in the divine being. 

Righteousness and justice are the foundations of thy 
throne: 

Mercy and truth go before thy face. 

(Ps. lxxxix. 14.) 

This righteousness appears to be regarded, not as 
a natural attribute, inseparable from the very notion 
of Godhead, but as one which Jahveh alone has 
proved Himself to possess in the positive revelation 
of Himself through the history of Israel. (Cf. 
Is. xlv. 19-24.)* 

B.—The Quality of the Righteousness of God. 

Apart from the general sense of righteousness, as 
being the direct opposite of wickedness, three ways 
in particular may be mentioned in which Jahveh 
was thought of as righteous. 

* Cf. Skinner, Hastings' Bible Dictionary IV., p. 278. 


102 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


i. Righteousness as Faithfulness. 

JahvelTs righteousness implied His unswerving 
adhesion to right in all that He said and did. He 
was not such an one as could be moved by wayward 
humours as were the gods of the heathen; hence His 
promises were altogether reliable, and He Himself 
was ever the same. His promises were nevertheless 
always contingent on the attitude of those to whom 
the promises were made, never on His changing 
moods, He changed not. It depended on men 
whether they made it possible for Him to fulfil His 
promises to them or not. The full implications of 
Jahveh’s faithfulness and unchangeableness were, 
however, never quite realised by the people of Israel, 
as witness, e.g. their retention of sacrifices which were 
at bottom an attempt to work a change on God, and 
even many of their prayers of which the same may be 
said. Jeremiah perhaps alone among the prophets 
realised that even prayer, fervent and agonising 
prayer, could not make Jahveh a whit more merciful 
and gracious than He was, nor, on the other hand, 
could it render the working out of His righteous anger 
against sin a whit less inevitable. (See especially 
Jer. xiv. 2-xv. 6.) 

Jahveh as righteous was thought of as absolutely 
dependable and trustworthy. His “ faithfulness ” 
was unto all generations (Ps. cxix. 90) ; He was 
“ a very present help in time of trouble.” None of 
those who trusted in Him would be put to shame. 

This faithfulness or steadfastness of Jahveh is 
not identical with Jahveh’s righteousness, but is a 


THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD 


103 

constant element of it. It is, however, frequently 
spoken of as if it were very much the same thing. 

In Thy faithfulness answer me, and in Thy righteousness 
(Ps. cxliii. 1. cf. Ps. xl. 10). 

It is true that this side of Jahveh’s character was 
challenged more than once. This was because 
righteousness was thought by not a few of the Hebrews 
to mean God’s fidelity to His covenant. His with¬ 
drawal of His protection from Israel appeared like 
unfaithfulness, partly because the old tribal view of 
Jahveh’s obligations had not yet broken down, 
partly because it was not yet fully realised that the 
calamities which befell Israel at the time of the 
exile did not mean that He had either forsaken or 
failed His people. 

Ps. lxxxix. represents the fear that Jahveh had 
proved unrighteous and unfaithful to His covenant, 
in this case, the covenant in particular with the house 
of David. Vv. 19-45 onwards remind Jahveh of His 
promises, and challenge Him as having failed to 
abide by them. 


Thou didst say 

33 My mercy will I not utterly take from him. 

Nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. 

34 My covenant will I not break, 

Nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. 

. 

38 But thou hast cast off and rejected. 

Thou hast been wroth with thine anointed. 

39 Thou hast abhorred the covenant of thy servant: 
Thou hast profaned his crown* even to the ground. 


* i.e. probably Jehoiachin’s. 


104 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


The first portion (vv. 1-18) of the present Psalm is 
in strong contrast and was added in later days when 
the darkness had passed away and Jahveh had proved 
Himself to be steadfast and true after all. It is a 
Psalm in praise of the faithfulness of Jahveh ! 

With my mouth will I make known thy faithfulness to all 
generations . 

Thy faithfulness wilt thou establish in the very heavens. . . 

Righteousness and justice are the foundations of thy throne: 

Mercy and truth go before thy face. 

(Ps. lxxxix. i, 2, 14.) 

2. Righteousness as Love. 

Jahveh’s righteousness was closely akin to love 
and mercy. It is a striking fact that in the Old 
Testament the righteousness and mercy of God are 
never opposed to one another or even contrasted with 
one another. Because He is righteous, Jahveh is 
merciful, especially in the sense that He is the 
champion of the oppressed and of the weak and 
helpless ( e.g . Ps. cxlvi. 7-9). The widow and the 
orphan are His especial care. His also it is to adjust 
the inequalities of this life (cf. 1 Sam. ii. 5-8). Even 
in the exercise of His just wrath “ He loveth not the 
death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from 
his wickedness and live.” (Cf. Ezek. xxxiii. 11.) 

Because He is righteous Jahveh will make allow¬ 
ances for extenuating circumstances, will judge men 
fairly and charitably, as it were in equity, and not 
according to the cast-iron technicalities of law. 

Jahveh executeth righteous acts 

And judgment for all that are oppressed . . . 

He hath not dealt with us after our sins: 


THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD 


105 


Nor rewarded us after our iniquities . . . 

For He knoweth our frame: 

He remembereth that we are dust . 

But the mercy of Jahveh is from everlasting to ever¬ 
lasting upon them that fear Him, 

And His righteousness unto children’s children. 

(Ps. ciii. 6, io, 14, 17.) 

The Psalms abound in the conjunction of the two 
thoughts of Jahveh’s righteousness and loving¬ 
kindness, as if the one naturally suggested the other. 

Jahveh is righteous in all His ways 

And gracious in all His works. 

(Ps. cxlv. 17.) 

So much so is this the case that in some places 
the righteousness of God practically means His 
merciful readiness to succour and save. 

Deliver me in thy righteousness and rescue me . . . 

My mouth will tell of thy righteousness. 

And of thy salvation all the day. 

(Ps. lxxi. 2, 15.) 

3. Righteousness as Justice. 

But by far the most characteristic and important 
element in the conception of the righteousness of 
Jahveh was the thought of His justice. This came 
more particularly to the front as Jahveh came to be 
considered less as the champion of His people and 
more as their judge. Righteousness is in fact pri¬ 
marily the judicial attribute of God as conceived in 
the Old Testament. It will be necessary, therefore, 
to examine this aspect of Jahveh s character at 
considerable length. 


Chapter IX 


THE JUSTICE OF GOD 
A.— Retribution and Reward. 

i. According to Works and Impartial. 

The first clearly marked upward stage in the 
beliefs of the Israelites as to the doctrine of the 
righteousness and justice of Jahveh is found in the 
realisation by the prophets that Jahveh demanded 
righteous conduct, and, furthermore, that faithfulness 
to His behests would be rewarded by tokens of His 
favour, while disobedience to His commands and 
disloyalty to Himself would meet with due punish¬ 
ment. There are two points to be noticed in this 
connection : (i) that Jahveh would reward the 

nation according to its works, blessings for righteous¬ 
ness, curses for wickedness ; (2) that He would deal 
impartially with the nation and would show it no 
special indulgence because it was His own particular 
people. 

(1) The first point is very clearly and uncom¬ 
promisingly set forth in Deuteronomy and elsewhere. 


106 


THE JUSTICE OF GOD 107 

It recurs throughout the book but is most emphati¬ 
cally stated in chapter xxviii. 

All these blessings shall come upon thee and overtake thee 
if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of Jahveh thy God. 
Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in 
the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body and the fruit 
of thy ground and the fruit of thy cattle . . . Blessed shall 

be thy basket and thy kneading trough. Blessed shalt thou 
be when thou comest in and when thou goest out. Jahveh 
shall cause thine enemies that rise against thee to be smitten 
before thee. . . . But ... if thou wilt not hearken 

unto the voice of Jahveh thy God to observe to do all His 
commandments ... all these curses shall come upon 
thee and overtake thee. Cursed shalt thou be in the city, 
and cursed shalt thou be in the field. Cursed shall be thy 
basket, etc. Jahveh shall send upon thee cursing, discom¬ 
fiture and rebuke. . . . Jahveh shall make the pestilence 

cleave unto thee. . . . Jahveh shall smite thee with 

fiery heat, with drought, and with blasting and with mildew. 

. . . Jahveh shall smite thee with the boil of Egypt and 

with the emerods and with the scurvy and with the itch (Deut. 
xxviii. 1-27). 

It should be noted (a) that this teaching refers 
primarily to national wickedness or goodness as the 
case might be, {b) that the punishments and rewards 
for the most part consist in material adversity or 
prosperity. 

(2) The second point we have already noticed as 
prominent in the teaching of pre-exilic prophets, 
especially of Amos, who portrayed Jahveh as the 
righteous judge of nations, in particular of the 
Hebrew nation, a judge that would by no means 
clear the guilty, though they were as His own child, a 


io8 GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 

judge who would in no way deal arbitrarily or 
capriciously, but who could be absolutely depended 
on to act in accordance with true justice. 

So far as one can judge, the prophets came to their 
belief that Jahveh would surely bring such just 
retribution to pass because they had first come to 
realise that Jahveh was absolutely just and righteous. 
Later on these factors in men's faith came rather in 
the reverse order, and their belief in Jahveh as a just 
and righteous God, indeed, their belief in a moral 
government of the universe, was in no small degree 
conditioned by the extent to which they were able 
to see that laws of just retribution were actually at 
work among mankind. Men's hold on the moral 
issues of life in not a few cases came to depend, at 
least so it seemed to them, on their being able to 
explain in some way satisfactory to themselves the 
apparent failures of retributive justice in the world. 
Anything in the nature of sceptical atheism that is 
referred to in the Old Testament is usually based 
almost directly on disbelief in this retributive 
justice of Jahveh. 

Ye have wearied Jahveh with your words. Yet ye say, 
wherein have we wearied Him ? In that ye say, Everyone that 
doeth evil is good in the sight of Jahveh and He delighteth in 
them ; or. Where is the God of Judgment ? (Mai. ii. 17). Ye 
have said, it is vain to serve God, and what profit is it that we 
have kept His charge ? . . . And now we call the proud 

happy ; yea, they that work wickedness are built up (Mai. iii. 
14, 15). But in the day that I take action, saith Jahveh, 
ye shall return and discern between the righteous and the 
wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth 
Him not (Mai. iii. 17, 18). 


THE JUSTICE OF GOD 109 

The wicked in the pride of his countenance saith, He 
will not require it ( i.e ., exact the penalty of wickedness). All 
his thoughts are, There is no God (Ps. x. 4).* 

2. Retribution and Reward—for Individuals as well 
as for Communities . 

Another great stage was reached when the indi¬ 
vidual came to be considered apart from the com¬ 
munity. We find in Deuteronomy that the ancient 
form of justice which indiscriminately punished the 
family of a criminal along with himselff had been 
recognised as unfair: 

The father shall not be put to death for the children, neither 
shall the children be put to death for the fathers, every man 
shall be put to death for his own sin (Deut, xxiv. 16). 

It was keenly felt during the exile that though 
the judgment which fell upon the nation was only 
too well deserved and was a proof of the justice 
and righteousness of Jahveh, yet many of the people 
of the nation who had shared in the penalty were 
innocent of the sin. More particularly was this felt 
by the younger generations that grew up among the 
exiles in Babylon. 

Ezekiel dealt with the problem (in chapters xviii. 
and xxxiii.), and though he did not explain how it 

* For this rendering and its justification, see Kirkpatrick The 
Psalms, p. 52. The denial is not of the existence of God, but of 
the fact that God is such an one that He can and will punish 
wickedness. 

t Vide Joshua vii. 24 and cf. the vendettas of Sicily and Corsica 
of modern times. 


no 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


could be in accordance with the justice of Jahveh 
that the innocent should thus be suffering with the 
guilty, he taught that Jahveh was so just that 
each individual in His eyes was responsible for no 
one’s sin but his own. And further than that, he 
declared that it was a man’s present actions and not 
his past deeds which determined Jahveh’s attitude to 
him. 

This word of Jahveh came to me, What mean ye, by 
saying this proverb . . . the fathers have eaten sour 

grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge ! As I live, 
saith Jahveh, never again shall ye use this proverb in Israel. 
Behold, all souls are mine—the soul of the father as well as the 
soul of the son is mine. The person who sins, he alone shall 
die. . . . If a son execute justice and righteousness, keep 

all my statutes to do them, he shall surely live. It is the 
person who sins who shall die. A son shall not bear his 
father’s iniquity, and a father shall not bear his son’s 
iniquity. The righteousness of the righteous shall be to his 
credit and the wickedness of the wicked to his discredit. . . . 

When a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does 
iniquity, for the iniquity he has done he shall die. But if a 
wicked man turn from the wickedness which he has done and 

do justice and righteousness, he shall save his life. 

Ye, the house of Israel, say The way of Jahveh is not right. 
Is not my way right, O house of Israel ? Is it not your ways 
that are not right ? Therefore, O house of Israel, I judge each 
of you according to his ways (Ezek. xviii. 1-4, 19, 20, 26-30). 

3. Retribution and Reward — Problems of Apparent 
Injustice. 

Another kindred problem that came to press 
heavily first became vocal about the time of the 
Exile,—the problem of the prosperity of the wicked. 


THE JUSTICE OF GOD 


hi 


It is to be noticed that it occurs in connection with 
the happenings within the nation, where innocent 
and righteous persons suffered at the hands of wicked 
men on whom fortune seemed to smile. And it is 
further important to observe that these innocent 
persons were sometimes suffering for righteousness 
sake. 

Jeremiah says, 

Jahveh, thou righteous judge, who testeth the heart and 
mind. I shall see thy vengeance on them [the wicked oppres¬ 
sors] . . . Thou art too righteous, Jahveh, for me to con¬ 

tend with thee ; why do the wicked prosper ? Why are they 
at ease that deal very treacherously ? (Jer. xi. 20 ; xii. 1). 

And Habakkuk, his contemporary, voices the same 
difficulty, though with the same initial faith in the 
inherent justice of Jahveh : 

The wicked encompass the righteous so that justice is 
perverted. Art thou not of old, O Jahveh my God, my Holy 
one with eyes too pure to behold evil ? . . . Why doest 

thou gaze upon them that deal treacherously ? Why art thou 
silent when the wicked swallow him that is more righteous 
than he ? (Hab. i. 4, 12, 13). 

From this time onwards, though the national 
aspect of the question was not lost sight of, yet the 
case of the individual member of the nation came 
to be the more insistent and puzzling problem. How 
could men still believe in the justice of God when 
there were innocent and righteous men who suffered 
adversity and wicked men who did not receive due 
punishment for their deeds, but were on the con¬ 
trary prosperous and powerful ? The orthodox 


112 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


answer to the first part of the problem was that as 
suffering and adversity were the divine penalty for 
sin, those who suffered must be sinners, though they 
might not appear to be so. Thus the justice of God 
was upheld at the expense of injustice to many un¬ 
fortunate individuals. Our Lord had to contend 
with this answer during His ministry (John ix. 1-3, 
Luke xiii. 5). 

This question of the Divine justice is chiefly 
dealt with in the Psalms and in Job, while in second 
Isaiah a most important contribution to the subject 
is made in the teaching of the book as to the value 
and uses of suffering, especially of unmerited 
suffering. 


Chapter X 


THE JUSTICE OF GOD—( Continued ) 

A.— The Problem of Divine Justice in the 
Psalms. 

In perhaps the majority of references the whole 
matter seems simple enough. If a man were good he 
would be happy and prosperous, and things would go 
well with him; if he were wicked, misfortunes would 
overtake him, and calamities would fall upon him. 
Well and evil-doing—each had its own appropriate 
fruits in this world. Conversely it followed that if 
misfortunes came they were the fruit of wickedness, 
while prosperity was the fruit of a life lived right¬ 
eously. But this further logical conclusion is not 
laboured in the Psalms as it is elsewhere, the 
psalmists as a rule being more concerned with 
experience than with logic. 

This comfortable and simple conception of the 
workings of God’s government of mankind, which 
after all is true in the main, especially if the converse 
is not insisted upon and plenty of apparent excep¬ 
tions allowed for, is found clearly set forth in such 
psalms as xcii. cxii., etc. But at times we find one 
or other of the psalm-writers puzzled and distressed 
because this apparently fundamental axiom in God’s 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


114 

dealings with men did not apply in many cases. 
Prosperity came to the wicked and misfortune to 
the religious. And sometimes the faith of the 
psalmists was shaken, as well it might be; for if 
men were not being rewarded according to their 
deserts, the whole fabric of righteousness and 
justice in the universe seemed to be undermined, 
while the honour of Jahveh was in danger, since it 
made Him appear to be either unjust or careless or 
too weak to be of much use to His people. Fortun¬ 
ately, as I have said, none of the psalmists solved 
the problem along the line of the specious logic 
which concluded that the prosperous must be really 
good people, and that the unfortunate must really be 
wicked. The facts were altogether against it, and, 
besides, the psalmist was often one of the unfortunate 
ones himself. 

There is no systematic attempt at a solution in 
any of the psalms ; what we find rather are enquiring 
meditations on the problem as in the presence of God. 

Ps. xxxvii. (an acrostic) is the most optimistic and 
perhaps superficial of these. It seems to take the 
form of an assurance that the problem is not really a 
problem, and that it has been rather overdrawn, and 
in the main it insists on the old half-truth that there 
is earthly retribution. " Fret not thyself because 
of evil-doers,’’ is the key-note of the psalm, repeated 
over and anon. 

1 Neither be thou envious against them that work unright¬ 

eousness. 

2 For they will soon be cut down like the grass. 

And wither as the green herb. 


THE JUSTICE OF GOD 


115 

The wicked are prosperous, it is true, but their 
prosperity is only temporary. It will soon pass away. 
This idea is repeated and developed all through the 
psalm (vv. 8-10, 12, 17, etc.). The writer is quite 
confident that the wicked will not escape his just 
doom here on earth; such seeming good fortune as 
he has is fleeting and illusory. 

The sorrows and misfortunes of the righteous are 
treated in much the same fashion. All comes right 
for the righteous man, if only he will wait patiently 
for Jahveh’s time. His misfortunes, too, are only 
temporary (vv. 4, 6, 9, etc.). Patience is all that 
is needed, and the problem will solve itself if only 
sufficient time is allowed. Prosperity will come in 
due time to the righteous and calamity to the wicked. 
Perhaps the bravest and most convincing state¬ 
ment on those lines is in verse 24, 

Though he (the righteous) fall, he shall not be utterly cast 
down, 

For Jahveh upholdeth him with his hand. 

That sounds like experience, and is not cast in too 
material a form. It reminds one of St. Paul. 

As to v. 25, when the writer brings forth trium¬ 
phantly his chief argument of experience, Kautzsch 
hits the nail on the head when he writes, “ We can 
only say that while there is something extremely 
touching and edifying in the testimony of the author 
of Ps. xxxvii. 25, that up to his old age he had never 
seen the righteous forsaken or his seed begging 
bread, unfortunately every one is not in a position to 
testify to the same experience. 

* Art. in Hastings' Bible Dictionary Religion of Israel. Vol. V.,p. 727a. 

9 


n6 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


One little contribution to the solution of the 
problem must not be overlooked. It is in v. 16, 
“ Better is a little that the righteous hath than the 
abundance of many wicked.” There is insight in 
this. Sometimes at least the inward happiness 
of the righteous poor counterbalances the outward 
prosperity of the wicked. Things, even as they 
are, are not always so unequal and unfair as they 
seem. 

Among other psalms which are worth studying in 
this connection, and which are mainly concerned 
with some phase or other of this subject, are xlix., 
lxxvii. and lxxiii. 

In Ps. xlix. the answer is that the grave equalises 
all things. The wicked man, be he ever so rich, can¬ 
not purchase exemption from the common lot 
(vv. 6, 7, and 9), nor can he take his wealth with him 
(10, 16, 17). A few years hence and the wicked will 
at least be no more prosperous than the righteous. 
And there is a further hint (v. 15) that for the right¬ 
eous even the grave may not be the last word. The 
hint is vague and uncertain and must not be 
pressed, yet it is the germ of a great truth. 

In Ps. lxxvii. the psalmist turns to the witness of 
history (v. 5). He describes how he recovered 
himself after a time of cloud and darkness (vv. 2, 4, 
etc.) by remembering God’s mercies in ancient times 
(v. 11). His difficulty had not been the prosperity 
of the wicked but the present distress of those who 
feared God, especially of himself (vv. 7-9). 

His backward look reassured him that all would 
be well. He has recognised that one half at least of 


THE JUSTICE OF GOD 


ii 7 

the great law of just retribution holds good, but in 
the case of a nation, not of an individual (vv. 13-15). 
Consequently he misses the biggest difficulty. Yet it 
is true that it is only in the history of nations that 
the law can be verified, the life of individuals being 
often too short. 

The writer of Ps. lxxiii. goes deepest, probably 
because the difficulty has been forced upon himself; 
he is not merely treating it for the benefit of someone 
else, less wise and less experienced than himself, as in 
the case of the writer of Ps. xxxvii. He is very 
frank and very human. 

2 My feet were almost gone ; my steps were well nigh 

slipped. 

3 For I was envious of the arrogant, 

When I saw the prosperity of the wicked. 

4 For there are no pangs in their death: 

But their strength is firm. 

(This seems hardly to tally with the testimony of 
the author of Ps. xxxvii.) 

5 They are not in trouble as other men; 

Neither are they plagued as other men. 

(Here manifestly there is exaggeration; the 
psalmist in his irritation has certainly lost his sense 
of perspective a little.) 

6 Pride is as a chain about their neck ; 

Violence covereth them as a garment. 

7 Their eyes stand out with fatness : 

They have more than heart can wish. 

11 They say, How doth God know ? 

And is there knowledge in the Most High ? 

12 Behold these are the wicked, 

And being always at ease they increase in riches. 


n8 GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 

He then contrasts his own miserable lot with that 
of the men who ignore God in their conduct, and live 
as if it were no matter what they did and how they 
behaved. What is the good of trying to do right ? 
he cries despairingly. 

13 Surely in vain have I cleansed my heart 
And washed my hands in innocency. 

He means that he has kept his hands free from 
bribery, robbery, fraudulency, etc., which were 
probably the methods by which the wicked had become 
wealthy. 

14 For all the day long have I been plagued 

And chastened every morning, 

15 If I had said, Let such be my discourse, 

I had been a traitor to the generation of Thy children. 

16 When I thought how I might understand this, 

It was too fearful for me, 

17 Until I went into the sanctuary of God. 

In the sanctuary, as the psalmist shows, he found 
relief from the feeling of soreness at the apparently 
unfair lot meted out to him, and in a measure he 
seems to see the solution of the problem. But again 
we find that it is a little more than a re-statement of 
the old theory of the justice of God. The higher 
up the wicked man has climbed in his prosperity, the 
greater will be his fall (vv. 18, 19). Calamity 
will certainly come and all the worse for being 
delayed. 

The explanation is, as usual, quite inadequate. 
What has really happened is that the psalmist, 


THE JUSTICE OF GOD 


1x9 

through being in the presence of God, has become 
utterly ashamed of his impatience and irritation and 
of thinking that Jahveh could really be unfair. He 
has regained confidence in God apart from any 
rational explanation of what has been perplexing him, 
so any reason is good enough for him. He, as it were, 
apologises to Jahveh for his attitude towards Him. 
“ For,” says he, “ my heart was becoming embittered, 
I was hurt in my feelings, I was brutish and ignorant, 
I was a stupid beast towards thee.” 

He now gives the true ground of his change of 
attitude. It is this :—he is again realising how 
precious communion with Jahveh is to him, and he 
virtually says, though not in so many words, “ After 
all, I have what I value far more than all the material 
prosperity which I have just been envying in the 
wicked.” 


Yet I am continually with thee : 

Thou dost hold me by my right hand. 

Now with thy counsel thou guardest me, 

And afterwards unto glory [or, gloriously] 
thou wilt take me. 

Whom have I in heaven ? 

And having thee on earth I delight in none else. 

It is good for me to draw near unto God. 

(vv. 23-25.) 

All this is not intended for an argument, though 
it is worth more than a thousand arguments to the 
psalmist’s heart and was the best practical solution 
he could have found. It is not theology, it is religion 
of the highest type. 


120 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


B.—The Problem of Divine Justice in Job and 
Isaiah liii. 

The message of the Book of Job is somewhat to 
the same effect as that of Ps. lxxiii., only it is 
worked out more elaborately and on a grander and 
vaster scale. It deals particularly with the seeming 
injustice of God as seen in the suffering of the 
righteous. But it is really a magnificent vindica¬ 
tion of the Justice of God accomplished in the 
process of facing the most acutely difficult case that 
could be imagined. We have there the picture of Job 
a truly righteous man , whom Jahveh approved 
(though Job of course does not know this) as one like 
whom “ there is none in the earth, a perfect and an 
upright man, one that feareth God and escheweth 
evil.” With the permission of Jahveh Job, in spite 
of his righteousness, was overwhelmed with every 
kind of trouble and affliction, not unlike those 
described in Deuteronomy as the inevitable punish¬ 
ment of the people of Israel if they wickedly dis¬ 
obeyed the commands of Jahveh as to righteous 
conduct. 

According to the prologue Job’s trials came upon 
him in order that his integrity might be vindicated in 
heavenly places, and that in his person it might be 
proved that human righteousness and goodness were 
not necessarily based on selfish motives or dependent 
on continuance of outward evidences of Divine favour 
such as happiness and prosperity, or even absence of 
pain and sorrow. This in itself is part of the answer 
to the problem. The writer presents to us a righteous 


THE JUSTICE OF GOD 


121 


man who is permitted to suffer, not because of his 
“ sin ” but because God is working out through him 
certain inscrutable lofty moral purposes for the 
furtherance of which Job would gladly have suffered 
anything had he only known what God was requiring 
of him, but which by the very nature of things 
could not be known either to him or to his fellows. 
Job indeed suffered that he might embody the fact 
that goodness was not at bottom a subtle form of 
selfishness. If goodness were really only a form of 
selfishness, then goodness would be an illusion, and 
life would lose all moral values. If but one man 
could be found, however, in whose goodness there was 
neither selfishness nor self-seeking, one who served 
God for nought, not even for the comfortable know¬ 
ledge of the Divine approval, then the most deadly 
attack on the supreme value of moral issues in life 
perforce would fail. The writer of the dr9.ma of Job 
pictures such a man. As we begin to understand the 
eternal issues at stake, which according to the story 
made the sufferings of that righteous one necessary 
and of untold spiritual value for mankind, perhaps 
for all spiritual beings akin to mankind and to God, 
we come to understand better certain of the reasons 
why it was “ necessary that the Son of Man should 
suffer,” and we enter a little into the sorrows and 
afflictions of Jesus, the Holy and Righteous One,* 
and especially into the mystery of that awful cry on 
the Cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou for¬ 
saken Me ? ” Job is not properly a prediction of our 

* Perhaps one ought to say rather “ the Righteousness of the 
Suffering and Afflicted One.” 


122 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


Lord, but this story and especially this element in 
it is one of the truest and deepest prophecies which 
prepared the way for Him. 

All this aspect of the case was, according to the 
drama, hidden from Job and the three friends who 
deal with him. The three friends are represented as 
attempting in various ways to defend the Justice 
of God in thus allowing Job to suffer, and though 
in the course of their speeches they say many 
beautiful and true things about God and about 
suffering, yet these appear for the most part as 
irrelevances, for each of them has deeprooted in his 
mind the false premise that Job must have been 
sinning against God, or else these calamities would 
not have befallen him. 

They defend the Righteousness of God at the 
expense of the righteousness of Job, and the Justice 
of God at the cost of injustice to Job. They virtu¬ 
ally declare that as God could not be so unjust as to 
afflict Job, if Job had not deserved his sufferings by 
his sin, the possibility of Job’s innocence is put out of 
court. When Job points to the prosperity of the 
wicked in disproof of their fundamental thesis that 
calamity is the inevitable result of wickedness and 
prosperity of goodness, they do not argue that the 
prosperous wicked must therefore be righteous— 
that were too absurd a thesis even for orthodoxy— 
but they contend like the writer of Ps. xxxvii. that 
this prosperity of the wicked is but temporary and 
that calamity will come all the more suddenly and 
dreadfully through being delayed (e.g. v. 3, 4). 
Job’s answer to that is that a wider experience would 


123 


THE JUSTICE OF GOD 

tell them that this is simply not true. The wicked 
are sometimes prosperous to the end, and the end 
is peaceful and enviable. 

How often is it that the lamp of the wicked is put out ? 

. . . Have ye not asked them that travel ? 

Do ye not know their tokens \i.e. concrete instances] 
That the evil man is spared in the day of calamity ? 
That they are led away scatheless in their day of wrath ? 

. . . And who repays him what he has done ? 

Yet is he borne to the grave. 

And they shall keep watch over the tomb. 

The clods of the valley are sweet unto him. 

. . . How then comfort ye me with nonsense. 

Seeing in your answers there remaineth only false¬ 
hoods ? (Job. xxi. 17, 29-34.) 

As to the alleged suffering of the righteous, the 
friends explain it away in much the same manner as 
they do the prosperity of the wicked. It is only 
temporary and in due time prosperity will be 
restored. 

Whoever perished being innocent ? 

(Eliphaz iv. 7.) 

Behold, God will not cast away a perfect man. 

Neither will He uphold the evildoers. 

He will yet fill thy mouth with laughter 

And thy tongue with shouting. 

(Bildad viii. 20-21.) 

Meanwhile, however, the apparently righteous 
suffer because they have sinned, perhaps unwittingly, 
against a God who is so holy that “ even His angels 
He chargeth with folly ” (iv. 18). " Can mortal 

men be just before God (iv. 17) ”? 


124 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


No man, therefore, even an apparently righteous 
man like Job, has a right to complain if God sends 
afflictions upon him. It must be just punishment 
and a proof of the divine anger, but it will pass away 
if endured with patience and meekness. 

Therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty, 
For He maketh sore and bindeth up. 

(Eliphaz v. 17, 18.) 

Later in the discussion, in the face of Job’s rejection 
of all such explanations as inadequate and inaccurate, 
even this modification of the doctrine that suffering 
is divine proof of wickedness is dropped by the 
friends. 

It is worth while mentioning here that Elihu 
(whose speeches are a later addition to the poem) 
follows up the thought that suffering may be chastise¬ 
ment. But he suggests that suffering is a proof of 
God’s love as well as of His righteous anger, and 
through it men may be purified and ennobled. Pain, 
even though it be the pain of punishment, has an 
educative as well as a penal value. By means of the 
“ cords of affliction ” 


He openeth their ears to instruction. 

He delivereth the afflicted by his affliction 
And openeth their ear by adversity. 

(Elihu xxxvi. 10, 15.) 

In so teaching Elihu made a notable contribution 
towards the general subject of the problem of 
pain and the justice of God, though, as he stated it, 


THE JUSTICE OF GOD 125 

his contention was not relevant to Job’s particular 
case. 

As to Job, his main achievement in the actual 
argument lies in the silencing of the friends and in his 
crushing and unanswerable refutations of their main 
position that all suffering must needs be penalty. 

Incidentally Job touched on three most impor¬ 
tant points. 

(1) He claimed that God was too just to desire 
justification of His actions at the expense of injustice 
to an innocent and righteous sufferer, that God 
required no special pleading in His defence. 

Will ye speak unrighteously for God 

And talk deceitfully for Him ? 

Will ye respect His person ? 

Will ye contend for God ? . . . 

He will surely reprove you. 

If ye do secretly respect persons. 

(xiii. 7, 8, 10.) 

(2) As the evidence of the injustice of God in His 
dealings with men almost overpowered him, Job 
flung defiance at this apparently unjust, omni¬ 
potent Being. 

Know now that God hath perverted my right . . . 

I call out violence but am not heard, 

I cry for help but there is no justice. 

Why do ye persecute me as God does ? 

(xix. 6, 7, 22.) 


But at the same time with a glorious inconsistency 
he clung to his belief in One above all and behind 


126 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


all to whom, as the champion of right and justice, 
he might commit his cause. 

Even now behold my witness is in Heaven, 

And I have a Sponsor on high. (xvi. 19.) 

The God whom he had defied is really a God who 
had no existence save in such a narrow and rigid 
theology as was then current. Job was struggling 
towards a higher and truer conception of God, and he 
reached it because he refused to worship or submit 
himself to any Deity whose moral sense was lower 
than his own. The teaching of the poet here surely 
is that any conception of God which does not satisfy 
men’s moral ideals is not true, even though it should 
happen to be orthodox, that God is higher than the 
best men know, and juster than the highest justice 
men can conceive. As Fairbairn says, the poet 
here “ struggles towards the only conception of God 
which has hope for the universe, a conception which, 
reached, may leave a man to many a conflict with 
evil, but can never leave man to despair.”* 

(3) Thirdly, Job for a moment seems to catch a 
glimpse of the way out of the worst difficulties of this 
great problem. Perhaps, perhaps,—he hardly dare 
to hope it,—perhaps the afterwards may hold possi¬ 
bilities of the vindication of his righteousness, a 
vindication that will carry with it proof that the 
Almighty is just after all. He hardly thinks of 
eternal life, but he hopes that in his case Sheol will 
not cut him off from ultimate justification at the 
hands of God, and that he will be allowed to know it. 


* City of God. p. 182. 


THE JUSTICE OF GOD 


127 


I know that my vindicator liveth 

And that he shall stand up at the last upon (my) dust. 

Yea another shall arise as my witness, 

And as my Sponsor shall I behold God, 

Whom I shall see on my side (lit. for me) 

And mine eyes shall behold no longer estranged. 

(xix. 25-27.) 

This is as far as Job gets in the solution of his 
difficulties and doubts. At the end of the poem, 
God is represented as speaking to Job and answering 
him ; but He offers to Job no explanations of his 
sufferings, no reasoned proof that they are in 
accord with divine justice and righteousness. God 
simply sets before him the vastness and complexity 
of the universe which He rules and the infinite 
diversity of the creatures which He has made, and for 
which He cares, the wonder and mystery of the 
natural world which depends solely on Him. 

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth ? 

Who determined the measures thereof ? 

Have the gates of death been revealed unto thee ? 

Where is the way to the dwelling of Light ? 

Who hath begotten the drops of dew ? 

Who provideth for the raven her food, 

When her young ones cry unto God ? 

Who hath sent out the wild ass free . . . 

Whose house I have made in the wilderness ? 

Hast thou given the horse his might ? 

Hast thou clothed his neck with the quivering mane ? 

Doth the eagle mount up at thy command 

And make her nest on high ? 

Hast thou an arm like God ? 

Deck thyself now with [my] excellent dignity. 

(Job xxxviii. 4, 5, 17, 19, 28, 41 ; 
xxxix. 5, 6; 19, 27; xl. 9, 10.) 


128 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


(In other words, what wouldst thou do with all 
this universe if thou wert God ?) 

God’s answer does not seem to reveal anything 
fresh to Job, it does not even contain a formal assur¬ 
ance that Job is righteous after all and that his 
sufferings are not punishment. Yet Job is well 
satisfied, and his heart is set at rest. His mind is 
" turned from the problem of evil to the problem of 
good.” He sees that there is still much that he 
cannot understand in the complex government of the 
world; no mortal man could tell the whys and 
wherefores of God’s intricate dealings. “ From his 
dark doubts and brooding speculations he is sum¬ 
moned ... to find in the majesty of nature a 
lesson of humility, and in the eternal fact of the 
beauty of the world a fresh sense of the glory and 
goodness of God.”* Somehow he recovers his sense 
of communion with God, a God whom he can trust 
though His ways are dark and beyond understanding. 
“ Whether it is another and more wonderful God 
who is revealed to him, or he attains a deeper and 
more sympathetic insight into the mind and character 
of God, he can scarcely tell. What he does know is 
that though his suffering is neither removed nor 
explained, God has come to him not as a Foe but as a 
Friend.”f 

The writer of this wonderful book does not pretend 
to have arrived at an adequate solution of the 
problem of the suffering of the righteous and the 
innocent in relation to the Justice of God. The 

* Strahan, Job, p. 314. 
t Ibid., p. 345. 


THE JUSTICE OF GOD 


129 


problem will probably always remain in part at least 
insoluble. What he does do is to suggest a way of 
escape from the intolerable weight of the problem 
which shall neither be at the expense of the innocent 
sufferers nor of our belief in the perfect justice and 
fairness of God. 

The book prepares the way for the belief that the 
sufferings of our Lord which culminated on the Cross 
were in perfect accord with the Justice of God 
and the sinlessness of Christ, though exactly why 
it was morally necessary for Him to suffer in order 
to redeem and save this sinful world is even yet a 
mystery. 

The definite statement that suffering not only did 
not necessarily imply the guilt of the sufferer, but 
might also have a redemptive value is set forth in 
Isaiah liii., a poem which has much in common with 
Job, but seems to take us a step further than does 
that book. The figure of the sufferer portrayed in 
the chapter would seem to resemble both Jeremiah 
and Job. Like Job, he is represented as stripped of 
all that makes life worth living, of health and wealth 
and reputation. He is afflicted with some disfiguring 
disease. His misfortunes are thought by his con¬ 
temporaries to be the penalty for his own sins. 
Like Jeremiah he “ was as a trustful lamb which they 
led to the slaughter ” (Jer. xi. 19), and men “ cut 
him off from the land of the living ” (Jer. xi. 19). 
The poet recognises that suffering is the result of sin 
but denies that the sufferer must needs be the sinner. 
He claims that in this case at least, where the 
sufferer is innocent and righteous and well-pleasing 


130 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


to Jahveh, his suffering is vicarious, and he hints that 
it is in some mysterious way redemptive. 

The sufferer in short is shown to be, not the 
innocent victim of the injustice of Jahveh, but the 
most honoured and necessary agent of the Love of 
Jahveh in the task of winning and redeeming the 
world. 

liii. 2 He had no beauty that we should regard him 
Nor appearance that we should delight in him. 

lii. 14 His aspect was more disfigured than any man's 
And his visage than any human being's. 

liii. 3 He was despised and rejected of men, 

A man of sorrows and known by reason of sickness; 
Like one from whom men hide their face, 

He was despised and we esteemed him not. 

Yet it was our sicknesses that he bore 
And our sorrows that he carried; 

But we esteemed him stricken, 

Smitten of God and afflicted. 

But he was wounded for our transgressions. 
Crushed because of our iniquities. 

The chastisement of our peace was upon him. 

And with his stripes have we been healed. 

All of us like sheep had gone astray, 

We had turned each to his own way, 

And Jahveh treated him as responsible 
And made him bear the guilt of us all. 

He was oppressed yet he humbled himself. 
Persecuted yet opened not his mouth; 

As a lamb he was brought to the slaughter, 

And as a sheep before her shearer he was dumb. 

By oppression his judgment was taken away. 

And who regarded his fate. 

That he had been cut off from the land of the living, 
For our transgressions had been smitten to death ? 


THE JUSTICE OF GOD 


131 

And his grave was appointed with transgressors, 
And with the wicked his corpse was cast forth. 
Although he had done no violence, 

Neither was any deceit in his mouth. 

Yet Jahveh was pleased to crush him 
Through giving himself as an offering for guilt. 

He shall see posterity and length of days, 

And the pleasure of Jahveh will be realised in his 
hands. 

My righteous servant shall make many righteous 

And himself will bear the burden of their iniquities. . . 

He poured out his life blood 

And was numbered with transgressors 

And himself bore the sin of many 

And interposed for transgressors. 


10 


Chapter XI 


THE LOVE OF GOD 

A.— The Basis and Content of the Love of God. 

We cannot tell for certain whether love entered 
into the earliest Hebrew conception of Jahveh. If 
it did so, it was not the love which casts out fear, for, 
as we have seen, there are still traces in the Old 
Testament of a time when the worship of Jahveh was 
a worship of fear as of a dread destroying power. 
It is probable that Jahveh’s love for His people, when 
first it came to be conceived of, was more of the nature 
of favour than anything else. It meant the bestowal 
upon Israel, to the exclusion of other tribes and 
nations, of various benefits and particularly of 
Jahveh’s protection from their foes. Many other 
tribes and nations held similar views with regard to 
their special deities. 

The Basis of Jahveh's Love. In itself such 
“ love ” was not necessarily ethical. It was 
thought to depend mainly on two things, at all 
events in the case of " tribal deities,” (i) on the 
semi-physical relationship of the deity to the tribe, 
which was established and renewed by Covenant 
sacrifices of shared blood, in virtue of which the 
deity became the Goel* of the tribe, that is to say, 
* Usually translated “ Redeemer ” in the English Versions. 


THE LOVE OF GOD 


133 


one who would avenge injury done to the tribe or to 
any member of it, and who would defend the tribal 
interests, irrespective of considerations of right and 
wrong ; (2) on the proper respect paid to the deity in 
the way of worship and sacrifices and the offering of 
firstlings, first-fruits, etc., and on the due regard to 
the observance of taboos on places, persons and 
foods. Neglect of such things was believed to stir 
up the wrath of the deity and to lead to a withdrawal 
of his favour and protection. 

In neither of these cases was there any ethical 
motive for favour shown or favour withheld. 

That both these conceptions held a strong place 
in Hebrew religion is abundantly evident in the Old 
Testament, especially in connection with the belief 
in Jahveh's love to Israel which was hardly ever 
thought of otherwise than as Covenant-Love. Even 
in later times there was a constant tendency to revert 
to them not only in the popular religion but among 
some of the leaders and teachers of the people, even 
among prophets, priests and psalmists. On the other 
hand, in spite of all backward movements, there was 
a strong steady move forwards towards realising the 
true content and extent of the love of God. 

As opposed to the former of these conceptions 
with regard to the basis of Jahveh’s Covenant-Love, 
the prophets, especially the later ones, insisted that 
Jahveh’s love to the Israelites was not based on His 
Covenant with them, much less on any semi-physical 
kinship with them, but that His Covenant with them 
was based on His Love and free choice (Deut. iv. 37). 
In His love and pity He chose them for His own 


134 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


purposes and therefore entered into Covenant rela¬ 
tions with them. It was, perhaps, for this among 
other reasons that Jahveh’s Covenant with Israel 
was sometimes described in terms of betrothal. 


As for thy nation in the day when thou wast born . . . 

thou wast not washed in water . . . nor swaddled. 

No eye pitied thee to do any of these things out of compassion 
for thee . . . And when I passed by and saw thee . . . 

I said to thee . . . live and grow up . Then I 

passed by thee and saw thee and behold thou hadst come 
to the time of marriage ... so I pledged myself to thee 
and entered into a covenant with thee . . . and thou 

becamest mine (Ezek. xvi. 1-8, cf. also Hos. ii.; Jer. ii. 2, 32).* 


As opposed to the latter of these Covenant ideas, 
from Amos onwards and to some extent before him 
there were not wanting men of vision who realised 
and taught that the continuance of Jahveh’s favour 
and love, so far as Israel’s side of the Covenant was 
concerned, was not dependent on proper observance of 
sacrificial ritual, taboos and such-like, but far more 
on the conduct of the people in daily life. In return 
for His Covenant-Love to them Jahveh required 
loyal allegiance to Him and looked for love, 
gratitude and trust. In addition He demanded 
righteousness and justice, truth and love from 
His people towards one another. Failing these 
things, His side of the Covenant became null and 
void. According to this teaching Jahveh’s 

* It is by no means unlikely that this view of Jahveh’s covenant 
with Israel as compared with the relation of other deities with their 
tribes may in essence go back to Moses. 


THE LOVE OF GOD 135 

Covenant-Love was primarily and supremely ethical 
and spiritual. 

It was the content of Jahveh's love for them 
which was the lesson that Israel learned best. He 
learned the lesson of its extent grudgingly. But 
of the riches of Jahveh's love he delighted to 
learn and the lessons came chiefly through the 
inspired interpretation of his experience of that same 
love. 

The Content of the Love of Jahveh, even in the 
earlier and more restricted conceptions of it, cannot 
well be analysed. There is such a reverent tender¬ 
ness in the allusions to it and illustrations of it in the 
Old Testament that one instinctively feels that one is 
on holy ground, even when one is made painfully 
aware, as in some instances, how far short those 
who speak of it are from realising the fulness of it. 
There is in JE a suggestion that the love of God 
was so fundamental an element in His character, 
that it was His glory. Moses is pictured as saying to 
Jahveh, “ Shew me I pray thee Thy glory.” Jahveh's 
answer was, “ I will make all My goodness pass before 
thee, and will proclaim the Name of Jahveh before 
thee : and I will be gracious to whom I will be 
gracious and will shew mercy on whom I will shew 
mercy ” (Ex. xxxiii. 18, 19). 

On the next day “ Jahveh descended in the cloud 
and proclaimed the name of Jahveh. And Jahveh 
passed by before him and proclaimed ‘ Jahveh, 
Jahveh, a God compassionate and gracious , slow to 
anger and plenteous in loving-kindness , and truth, 
keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and 


136 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


transgression and sin/ ” Then follows a hard 
saying—“ And that will by no means clear the 
guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the 
children and upon the children’s children, upon the 
third and upon the fourth generation ” (Ex. xxxiv. 
5-7). But even here it is evident how infinitely the 
mercy of Jahveh was held to exceed His sterner 
quality of retributive justice. 

Now we have in this passage the three favourite 
and constantly recurring terms used in the Old 
Testament for expressing the kind of love which 
Jahveh exhibits to “ them that love Him.” These 
are :— 

(a) radium —" compassionate.” It is at root a 
woman’s word and suggests the most sacred emotions 
of motherhood. It is wonderful to find it used of 
the terrible Jahveh. 

(b) channun “ gracious ” or, more literally, 
“ favourable.” The noun chen is used in the phrase 
“ finding favour ” with anyone. The corresponding 
adverb chinnam means “ gratis,” " freely,” “ for 
nothing.” The suggestion in the word is the sheer 
uncalled-for generosity of Jahveh’s love or what one 
might call His gracious “ givingness.” 

(c) rah chesed “ plenteous in lovingkindness.” 
Chesed, in the first instance, implies “ loyalty ” and 
has sometimes been rightly rendered “ leal love.” 
It is the most suitable word to express the idea of 
Covenant-love. But although this fundamental 
idea is never quite absent from it, it has come to 
mean, especially in its later usage, sheer goodness, 


THE LOVE OF GOD 


137 


kindness, lovingkindness, mercy, grace. In fact, all 
the most beautiful thoughts connected with love are 
packed into its compass when it is applied to Jahveh 
by the writers who knew Him best. It is the word 
par excellence for the love of Jahveh, beside which 
the others stand incomplete and insufficient. It is 
to be noticed that Jahveh in our passage is called 
“ plenteous,” “ abundant ” in chesed. Similar 
phrases abound in the connection. His chesed is 
stored up for thousands, it is as great as the 
heavens (Ps. lvii. 11), the earth is full of it (Ps. 
xxxiii. 5)> it is inexhaustible so that it lasts for evei 
(Ps. cxxxvi). 

The elements in the divine Covenant-love which 
were most gladly recognised and easily appreciated 
by the Hebrews are beautifully expressed by such 
words as those in Deut. xxviii. 63(#) which suggest 
the benefits accruing from Jahveh’s favour and from 
the love at the back of it,—” Jahveh rejoiced over you 
to do you good,”—and by passages like that in Deut. 
xxxii. 9-11 which portray His protective care for 
His own people. 

9 Jahveh’s portion is His people, 

Jacob is the lot of His inheritance. 

10 He found him in a desert land 

And in the waste howling wilderness: 

He compassed him about, He cared for him, 

He kept him as the apple of His eye. 

11 As an eagle that stirreth up her nest, 

That fluttereth over her young, 

He spread abroad His wings, He took them, 

He bare them on His pinions. 


138 GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 

B.— The Depth and Length of the Love of God. 

The deeper and higher elements in the love of 
Jahveh for His people may best be studied in the 
prophecy, life and message of Hosea, who more than 
any other Old Testament writer has unveiled for us 
the holy of holies of the Divine Nature. To under¬ 
stand and appreciate his teaching on this subject it 
is necessary to know something of the circumstances 
of his life. 

The way in which Hosea learnt of the nature and 
character of God and the experiences which fitted 
him to understand and pass on his message are a 
striking contrast with the case of his earlier con¬ 
temporary Amos. Amos was a prophet of the 
Elijah type, who learnt to hear and see God through 
the awful solitudes of the wilderness, and thought 
of Him in terms of wild, unspoiled, majestic nature. 
The stern, unchanging, almost relentless side of the 
divine character was thus what impressed him most. 
But Hosea learned his lessons in a different school, 
where the lessons are harder because less simple, 
when the books are written not on grey limestone 
rocks but on human lives. Hosea’s training ground 
was in his family life, and his teachers were tragedy, 
shame and sorrow. His sad story may be gathered 
from the first three chapters of his book. 

Hosea married a woman called Gomer, the 
daughter of Diblaim whom he seems to have loved 
passionately (i. 2-4). After the birth of her first 
child, a son, it gradually dawned on the unhappy 
husband that his loved wife was unfaithful to him 


THE LOVE OF GOD 


139 


(i. 6). A daughter was born to her. The little lass 
received the name of Lo-ruhamah (she who has 
never known a father’s love). Later came another 
son, to whom he gave the name Lo-ammi (no kin of 
mine). The names tell their own story. Things 
went from bad to worse. The wretched woman 
deserted her husband, leaving her home ruined, and 
eventually fell into the most utter degradation. 
There seemed to be nothing for Hosea but to put her 
away and disown her altogether. 

Then Hosea said, I will put away Gomer, for she is not my 
wife, and I will not be her husband. And on her children I 
will have no pity, since they are children of whoredom. For 
their mother hath become a harlot, she who conceived them 
hath behaved shamefully (Hos. ii. 2, 4-6). 

But instead of this, God put it into his heart 
to try another method (iii. 1). She had deserted 
him, but he would not desert her; she had 
brought shame upon him, but he would not give 
her up. She had ruined his life, but he would still 
devote it to saving her from herself. Divine love 
and pity and perhaps hope took hold of his heart, 
and he searched her out. He had to search her 
out and buy her; she had become reduced to the 
position of a slave (iii. 2): “So I bought her for 
15 pieces of silver, and eight bushels of barley, and 
a measure of barley ” (which altogether make up 
the average price of a slave). Then by discipline and 
restraint he patiently endeavoured to restore her to 
virtue (iii. 3) and to teach her to contend with her base 
passions (ii. 6), and if possible in due time to bring 
her to reciprocate his own love and loyalty to her. 


140 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


Evidently in times past he had tried to win and retain 
her love by lavish kindness, by giving her everything 
she could desire (ii. 8). Now he has to try the far 
harder method of stern discipline, which is sometimes 
the only form which the truest love can take, but is 
cruelly hard for those who have only that way in 
which they may rightly show their love. 

Whether the prophet’s patient love and self- 
sacrificing devotion were at length rewarded, we are 
not told. But what he hoped for is beautifully 
suggested in ii. 14-20 (spoken of Israel, but quite 
evidently reflecting the mind of the prophet towards 
his erring wife). 

Therefore I am going to allure her and bring her into the 
wilderness and speak endearingly to her. . . Then shall 
she respond as in the days of her youth. . . . and it shall 
be in that day . . . she shall call me, my husband . . . 

and (those others) shall be no more mentioned by their names. 
And I will betroth her to me forever. Yea, I will betroth her 
to me in righteousness and in judgment and kindness and 
mercy. Yea, I will betroth her to me in righteousness. 

In this way Hosea was taught the mind, or 
rather the heart of God, learned something of His 
patient love, and of the sheer sorrow underlying the 
seemingly stern judgments which Jahveh was 
bringing to pass upon Israel. This insight of his 
into the divine pity has been surpassed by none of 
the prophets. No one of the Old Testament writers 
has understood or portrayed so tenderly and 
sympathetically as he the attitude of God towards the 
sinner whom He loves. 


THE LOVE OF GOD 


141 

In the earlier part of his book Hosea uses his own 
sorrow to illustrate the sorrow of God and the divine 
attitude towards Israel. He pictures Israel as the 
spouse of Jahveh, who in the early days when she 
came up from Egypt responded to him (ii. 15). 
But now she has become unfaithful to him, making it 
impossible for Jahveh to show love and pity to her 
children (i. 6), (“I will no longer have pity on the 
house of Israel that I should still spare them ”) and 
proving all too plainly that they were no true children 
of his. “ Call his name not-my-people, for ye are 
indeed not my people, and I indeed am not your 
God.” Though nominally the people of Jahveh, 
Israel in practice served the baals, the deities of the 
land into which Jehovah had brought her. “ She 
went after them and forgot me, is the oracle of 
Jahveh ” (ii. 13). 

Time and again Jahveh declares His intention of 
bringing judgment upon the guilty nation. The 
book is full of threats, most of them clear enough in 
their purport, but somehow, severe as they are, and 
severe though the accusations launched against 
Israel are, yet they are nearly always spoken 
grudgingly, as if it were hard for Jahveh to speak 
thus, and hard for his prophet to have to proclaim 
such messages. 

Alongside of the condemnation, and intertwined 
with it, we are shown Jahveh as it were at His 
wits end, to help and heal the erring nation, while 
pity and justice struggle together. 

I will return to my place, [ i.e ., Sinai] until they are con¬ 
founded and seek my presence (Hos. v. 15). 


142 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


When they are in distress they will quickly seek me saying, 
Come, let us return to Jahveh, for He hath torn, and He will 
heal us ; He hath smitten and He will bind us up (Hos. vi. i). 

But apparently it is a vain hope, and we hear 
Jahveh saying, 

What can I make of you, O Ephraim, 

What can I make of you, O Israel, 

Since your love is like a morning cloud, 

Yea, like the dew that goes early away ? (Hos. vi. 4.) 

Jahveh longs, and plans for his people to repent, 
but all in vain. See, too, the heart hunger in his next 
word. 

It is leal love that I delight in, and not sacrifice, the know¬ 
ledge of God, and not burnt offerings (Hos. vi. 6). 

And this a little later on, 

Were I to write ever so many instructions as those of a 
stranger, would they be regarded ? (Hos. viii. 12.) 

Perhaps the most wonderful and utterly pathetic 
of all these passages is that in chapter xi. 

They have refused to return to me, 

Therefore the swords shall whirl in their cities, 

And shall devour in their fortresses. 

For my people are bent on rebelling against me, 

And upon the Baalim they call with one accord. 

How can I give thee up, O Ephraim ! 

How can I give thee up, O Israel ! 

How am I to give thee up as Admah, 

And make thee as Zeboim \i.e ., as Sodom and Gomorrah]. 

My heart exerts itself, my love doth yearn. 

I will not carry into effect the fierceness of my anger. 

I will not turn to destroy Ephraim. 

For God am I, not man. 

Holy in the midst of thee. 

Therefore I will not consume (Hos. xi.). 


THE LOVE OF GOD 


M3 


We here have the suggestion that Hosea recog¬ 
nised that such wonderful forgiving love was not 
natural to man, and where it was found it was a 
reflection of God’s love, and not vice versa. 

Passages such as these, with their suggestion of 
the infinite patience and exquisite tenderness of the 
Divine Love conjoined with their recognition of the 
utter antagonism of God to moral evil and of the 
separation which sin creates between the unrepentant 
sinner and God shadow forth something of the 
agelong and tragic problem of the Atonement which 
was worked out on the Cross of Jesus Christ. 


Chapter XII 


THE LOVE OF GOD ( Continued) 

A.—The Fatherhood of God. 

Hosea did not confine himself to the analogy of 
the relations of husband and wife in his attempt to 
express the depth of Jahveh’s love towards His 
people. He used also that of father and son, and 
in so doing makes what is, as it were, the first rough 
sketch of the picture of God as the Father which is 
central in the teaching of Jesus' complete revelation 
of Him. The metaphor was previously suggested in 
Ex. iv. 22, 23 (J) where Jahveh speaks of Israel as 
His firstborn, to show that He will avenge injury done 
to Israel as a father would avenge an injury done 
to his first-born son. Hosea has taken up the image 
and transformed it. It is frequently used in later 
writings, and in most of them may be traced directly 
or indirectly to the influence of Hosea. 

Hosea speaks of Jahveh's relations towards Israel 
in early days as those of a father towards a baby son, 
to express something of the tender and protecting 
care which He had shown to His people and to 
contrast it with their present ungrateful forgetfulness 
of Him. Implied, though not actually expressed, is 
the thought of the same love, now robbed of its joy 


144 


THE LOVE OF GOD 


145 


and longing for an answering love that understood 
even a little. The passage in Hosea is a mere 
fragment, but it is an exquisite fragment. 

When Israel was young then began I to love him, 

And from Egypt I called my son. 

It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, 

I used to take them on my arms, 

But they did not know that it was I that healed them. 

(Hos. xi. 1, 3.) 

[The picture is of a little child trying to walk and tumbling 
down and hurting itself.] 

In vii. 15 we find a picture of a further stage 
when the boy nation was older and the Father 
instructed him in manly exercises. 

And it was I who trained them and strengthened 
their arms. 

Yet towards me they think ill. 

Isaiah later used the same image : “ I have 

nourished and reared children, and they have 
rebelled against me ” (Is. i. 2). So also does the 
Deuteronomist and with less bitterness : “ Jahveh 
thy God did carry thee as a man doth carry his baby 
boy” (Deut. i. 31). Moses had been pictured in 
JE as acting thus for Israel. Moses said, “ Have I 
brought them forth that thou shouldest say unto me, 
Carry them in thy bosom as a nursing father carrieth 
the suckling child, unto the land which thou swarest 
unto their fathers ” (Num. xi. 12) ? Now the 
metaphor has been transferred to Jahveh as more 
appropriate ! 


146 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


Jeremiah, Hosea’s spiritual disciple, sympa¬ 
thetically followed up Hosea’s thought and enlarged 
on it. 

I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus 

Thou hast chastened me and I was chastised . 

Let me return and I will return since thou art Jahveh my 
God. 

. . . I am ashamed, yea even confounded because I bear 

the reproach of my youth. 

Is not Ephraim my dear son ? Is he not a darling child, 

So that often as I speak of him I must remember him ? 

Therefore my heart yearneth for him ; I must be merciful 
to him. 

(Jer. xxxi. 18-20.) 

In the same connection Jahveh is represented as 
saying “Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting 
love : therefore with love have I drawn thee ” (v. 3). 
Other later passages where Jahveh’s conduct and 
attitude to Israel is likened to that of father and 
son, or more generally of a father and his little child, 
are not infrequent especially in second Isaiah.* 

The thought of the Fatherhood of God was not 
confined to the Hebrews. But where it occured else¬ 
where, as a rule, it was simply a poetic way of describ¬ 
ing the deity as the ultimate source of existence, and 
it did not even necessarily imply a belief in the 
personality of the deity, or else it was used of the 
god as being an actual physical ancestor of the 
family or nation which counted him its “ Father.” 

* Deut. xxxii. 6 ; Is. xliii. 6 ; lxiii. 7, 16 ; lxiv. 8 ; Mai. i. 6, ii. 10 
cf. also Psalm ciii. 13 ; Prov. iii. 12 ; Is. xlix. 15 and lxvi. 13 ; 
should also be noticed, where Jahveh is compared to a mother with 
her infant, 


THE LOVE OF GOD 


147 


In the Old Testament the relationship which the 
Fatherhood of God implies is in nearly all cases* an 
entirely ethical one, and the thought is mainly used as 
a suitable way of expressing something of Jahveh’s 
protective care and steadfast self-sacrificing love 
towards His people. It was in this ethical sense that 
Christ used it. 

On the other hand, the thought of God's 
Fatherhood in the Old Testament is restricted in 
two ways. 

(1) It was used of the attitude of God to Israel, 
and wonderfully deep and strong though it is, it was 
hardly ever thought to include other nations than 
Israel. It was still exclusive and limited. 

(2) It was used almost invariably to describe 
God's relation to the nation as a whole, f The 
application of the thought of God's Fatherhood to 
individual persons as such is hardly ever even 
suggested in the Old Testament. 

It was left for our Lord to extend it from the 
community to the individual human being, as for 
Him also it was left to show that the loving Father¬ 
hood of God and all that that implied embraced all 
mankind, whether they knew it or knew it not. 

B.—The Breadth of the Love of God. 

The realisation of the breadth of God's love by 
no means kept pace with the realisation of its depth. 
The covenant love of Jahveh seemed necessarily to 

* But cf. Deut. xxxii. 6 ; and Mai. ii. 10. 

f Occasionally to the persons who represent the nation, e.g. 
David and his seed. 


11 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


148 

involve hate. To love and protect the tribe obviously 
meant to war against its foes and to hate them. All 
the more was this the case when the god was thought 
of as part and parcel of the tribe. The ruthless 
cruelty towards the foes of Israel which was attrib¬ 
uted to Jahveh was thought to be in no wise incon¬ 
sistent with His love and tender pity for Israel. 
Some of the strongest expressions with regard to 
this hostility of Jahveh towards Israel’s enemies are 
to be found in Deuteronomy, which was to some 
extent written in the light of Hosea’s teaching on 
the love of God, and itself lays no little stress on 
mutual love between Jahveh and His people (Deut. 
vii. 10, 16 ; xiii. 12-17 ; xx. 10-18). 

(1) As we have already suggested, the Covenant- 
Love of Jahveh was conceived of as exclusive. 
Monolatry on the part of Israel was somewhat natur¬ 
ally felt to be correlative to an exclusive love and 
favour on Jahveh’s part. As monolatry passed into 
monotheism, however, the apparent logic of such 
a position gradually began to break down. The 
thought of God’s world-wide relations and especially 
of His position as Creator of the universe and of 
all men, militated against this exclusive view of 
His goodness and kindness. If seed-time and 
harvest were among the gifts of His love, it was 
evident that He did not confine them to Israel alone. 
All men without distinction received the gifts which 
Jahveh the Creator had scattered with an open 
hand (Ps. civ. 10-end). 

A small group of Psalms, mostly late, seem to 
have lost the exclusive note, though it is doubtful 


THE LOVE OF GOD 


149 


how far they have really broken with particularism. 
They recognise that as all the earth belongs to Jahveh, 
so also all the nations of the earth are His. He is 
Lord and King of all men, and for them the knowledge 
of that fact should be an occasion of gladness and 
rejoicing. It is not suggested that Jahveh can be 
towards other nations exactly as He is towards 
Israel, but yet they were not altogether outside the 
scope of His goodness and to some extent they might 
come under His beneficent rule. The clearest 
example of this is in Psalm lxvii., though even 
there the particularist note is not altogether absent. 

1 God be merciful to us and bless us 
And cause His face to shine upon us, 

2 That thy way may be known upon earth, 

Thy saving health among all nations. 

3 Let the peoples praise thee, O God, 

4 O let all the nations be glad and sing for joy. 

For Thou shalt judge the peoples with equity 
And govern the nations upon earth .... 

7 God shall bless us, 

And all the ends of the earth shall fear Him.* 

This is hardly the recognition that God's love is 
universal in extent, but it is at least the beginning of 
the recognition of the fact that something akin to 
His love has a world-wide sweep. 

(2) Another definite step in the same direction 
is to be found in second Isaiah, particularly in the 
Servant Poems. 

The prophet shows himself to be the spiritual heir 
of early prophets such as Hosea and Jeremiah in 

* See also Pss. lxvi. 1-9; and xcix-c. 


lla 


i5o 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


recognising how the hand of God had been in the 
history of his race even from earliest times ; how 
God had chosen Israel and had nursed the infant race 
and had watched over it and cared for it and trained 
it as it grew to maturity ; how His relations with it 
had been especially close and tender. He develops 
still further the conception that Israel was under the 
special protection and care of Jahveh, even showing 
how the great kings and empires of the world and 
their doings had been over-ruled by Jahveh for 
Israel's sake. 

Thus saith Jahveh to His anointed. 

To Cyrus whose right hand I have holden 
To subdue nations before him .... 

For Jacob my servant's sake and Israel my chosen 
I have called thee by thy name. 

(Is. xlv. i, 4.) 

His teaching is quite definitely that Israel was the 
chosen race, the elect people, a doctrine which 
could all too readily lend itself to the strengthening of 
particularistic ideas as to the exclusiveness of the 
Love and Favour of Jahveh. 

On the other hand, however, the prophet built 
upon the foundation laid by Amos in recognising also 
the fact that Jahveh is above such a parochial or 
unfair attitude as favouritism to any one nation—the 
fact that God is no respecter of persons or nations. 

One of the great contributions of this prophet to 
true religion is that he combined and harmonised 
these two apparently opposing convictions. His 
message is that Israel had not been picked out from 
among the other nations of the world merely for his 


THE LOVE OF GOD 


151 

own advantage, so that he might selfishly enjoy 
certain benefits denied to the others or be favoured 
at their expense. On the contrary his choice was for 
the sake of all the other peoples of the earth, his 
training, all his unique experiences as a nation were to 
fit him for service for God’s use, that the world might 
be brought to the knowledge of the truth through him. 
His choice in fact, instead of being a token of the 
exclusiveness of Jahveh’s love, was, on the con¬ 
trary, a token of its inclusiveness and was to serve 
the interests of His universal loving purposes for all 
mankind. In other words Israel had been chosen 
because God loved the world. 

{a) Hearken to me ye coastlands, 

And listen, ye distant people . . . 

He said unto me, Thou art my servant 
Israel in whom I will glorify myself . . . 

And now saith Jahveh 

(He who formed me from birth to be his servant) . 

I will make thee the light of the nations 

That thy salvation may reach to the ends of the earth. 

(xlix. 1, 3, 5, 6.) 

(b) Behold my servant whom I uphold, 

My chosen in whom I take delight, 

I have put my spirit upon him, 

That he may set forth judgment [i.e. true religion] 
to the nations. 

He will not cry aloud nor roar 

Nor let his voice be heard in the street. 

A bruised reed he will not break 
And smoking flax he will not quench. 

Faithfully will he set forth true religion, 

He will not lose vigour nor be crushed 


152 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


Until he establish true religion in the earth. 

And for his teaching the coastlands are waiting . . . 

I Jahveh have called thee in righteousness, 

I have made thee a pledge to the peoples, 

A Light to the nations. 

(Is. xlii. 1-4, 6.) 

There is appropriately appended to this, a song of 
praise beginning 

Sing to Jahveh a new song 

And His praise, from the end of the earth. 

(Is. xlii. 10.) 

Such teaching as this is unfortunately almost 
unique in the Old Testament. When Jesus made it 
fundamental to His Gospel it was revolutionary. 

3. Perhaps the high-water mark of the realisation 
in the Old Testament of the extent of the love of God 
and even more particularly of the fact that God is 
such that He has a profound love and pity for human 
beings as human beings quite apart from the fact of 
their belonging to the chosen people, is to be found in 
the book of Jonah. 

The book was written with the express purpose of 
protesting against the particularism of Judaism 
which virtually denied common “ humanity ” to the 
One God and Creator of all men. The writer brings 
before his readers the picture of a great heathen 
city, Nineveh. He does not describe the riches, 
pomp, and pride of the place as other prophets had 
done who had thought of it as a menace to Israel 
and Israel’s world. It is rather the thought of the 
hundreds of thousands of ordinary human folk who 


THE LOVE OF GOD 


153 


made up the population of the vast city, which he 
brings before the mind of his readers. (Jon. iii. 3 ; 
and iv. 11.) And these countless human beings, 
though they were outside of the Covenant, he shows 
to be men, capable of repentance towards God. 
“ And when God saw their works, that they turned 
from their evil way, he repented of the evil which he 
said he would do unto them ’’ (Jon. iii. 10). The 
book describes the effect of their escape upon Jonah, 
and closes with God’s own vindication of His love 
and pity to His jealous prophet. Jonah could not 
bear to see the love promised to Israel alone and 
cherished by her, shared at all with the heathen. 
So he sulked and would take no further responsi¬ 
bility for, nor interest in his work. In fact he acted 
the part of the Elder Brother in the Parable of the 
Prodigal Son. The gourd-incident brings out the 
utter narrowness and pettiness of such an attitude of 
mind, and it is left compared with the breadth of 
Jahveh’s heart. “And Jahveh said Thou carest for 
a gourd for which thou hast not laboured, nor hast 
thou brought it up * and shall not I care for Nineveh 
the great city in which there are more than twelve 
times ten thousand beings who know not their right 
hand from their left—and much cattle too ’’ ? 

“ We are left,” as Sir G. A. Smith says, " with 
the grand vague vision of the immeasurable city with 
its multitude of innocent children and cattle and 
God’s compassion brooding over all.’ ’ f 


* Cf. the prophetic picture of the child Israel, 
f Book of the Twelve Prophets, Vol. II., p. 54 


154 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


In this nameless writer with such a splendid yet 
simple message of the universal extent of God’s 
Love and Pity have we not a true forerunner of Him 
who revealed the Father in all His fulness, and whose 
message is best represented in the words “ God so 
loved the world ” ? 


Chapter XIII 


CONCLUSION 

Looking back over the ground that has been 
covered, we note that most of the revelation of God 
which came to these men of the Old Testament came 
apparently along the line of experience. These men 
were “ taught of God ” to see Him and understand 
Him, partly through Nature, but more often and 
with more convincing and illuminating effect through 
the experiences of their Nation and through their 
own experiences as individuals. Revelation vouch¬ 
safed in this way is in the nature of things gradual and 
cumulative, and when it concerns the big funda¬ 
mental things can normally only come through a 
succession of seers, when one generation is heir to the 
truth revealed to its predecessor and hands on that 
revelation, enriched by new experience and fresh 
insight, to the generation that comes after. 

How far direct, as opposed to indirect, revelation 
and illumination was granted to the Old Testament 
Prophets and Seekers after God, it is impossible to 
say for certain. The question is really of secondary 
importance. Whether the knowledge of the truth of 
God came by intuition or deduction 01 both, in most 
cases the validity of it was confirmed by actual 
experience of life and sometimes also by mystical 
fellowship with God. 


155 


156 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


The history of revelation must usually be derived 
from the human side; in other words it must be a 
history of perception, the record of what men came 
to see rather than primarily of what God has revealed. 
On the other hand the truths which were seen were 
eternal facts which were actually there to be seen by 
all who had eyes to see, and furthermore it was by 
the infinite patience of God that men were trained to 
look at these Divine verities and to perceive and 
understand them. 

We further note, in almost all of these studies, 
that the gradual process of revelation and perception 
is seen to be unfinished and that in each case it was 
only in our Lord Jesus Christ that there was com¬ 
pletion and perfection. But in all cases the direction 
has been found to be Christwards. In this sense to 
speak of no other it is the literal truth, that the Law 
and the Prophets and the Psalms point to Christ. 
All such studies finally lead us towards Him, that is, if 
the Old Testament be read as it was written—pro¬ 
gressively. Otherwise this vital fact, a fact which 
indeed gives the Old Testament its chief value, is 
seriously obscured. 

It may be asked, What was the purpose of this 
previous, partial revelation ? Why this gradual 
development ? Why did not Jesus come much 
earlier with His full revelation ? Was not all the 
long Old Testament process a waste of time ? Why 
was it only after long ages of dim twilight and of 
gradually dispersing darkness that the full blaze of 
sunshine broke upon a corner of the world instead of 
coming at once ? 


CONCLUSION 


157 


The questions are fair ones. The answer seem¬ 
ingly lies not in the inability or unwillingness of God 
to reveal Himself or to give Himself to men but 
rather in the nature of human beings. A celebrated 
preacher with a congregation which was much above 
the normal in its responsiveness and spiritual capacity 
has left it on record that it took him many years of 
steady instruction from the pulpit to get a new 
conception into the hearts and minds of his people. 
The human race arrives at its vital beliefs very gradu¬ 
ally and slowly. It clings tenaciously to that which 
it has once grasped, but anything new has the greatest 
difficulty in finding permanent lodging in the human 
heart, and much more in the case of a community 
than of an individual. This is particularly true in 
the case of truths and beliefs which cannot be verified 
except in so far as they fit human experience and 
satisfy the deeper human instincts. It takes long, 
moreover, for the human race to adjust itself, its 
thoughts and its life, to an incoming fragment of 
vital truth. Such a new truth has to be tested 
(and the testing is a very long process) by the older 
half-truths and imperfect apprehensions of truth 
which it may have to displace, in so far as these are 
tangled with error, or with which it may have to har¬ 
monise, in so far as they are still akin to spiritual 
realities. 

God gave to men the revelation of Himself as they 
were able to bear it, and in so far as they responded 
to it. The more they received and used, the more was 
given to them, until in time the fullest revelation of 
God vouchsafed to men came in the person of Jesus 


158 


GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


Christ. Had Jesus come earlier in the history of the 
human race, and in particular of the Jewish people, 
He would have been an anachronism, for men would 
not yet have been ready or able to apprehend the 
meaning of His life and teaching. It would have 
been, in part at least, wasted upon them. 

When Jesus actually came there was at least a 
little group of men and women, the heirs of the true 
prophetic tradition, who were ready for Him, though 
they had still much to learn and much to unlearn. 

In a very real sense He built His church upon the 
foundation of the Prophets or in other words on the 
Old Testament revelation of God of which the 
Prophets were the recipients and the interpreters. 


FINIS 


INDEX 


OLD TESTAMENT : 


Genesis 


PAGE 

iii. 22 


38 

vi. 

• . 

47 

vii. 4 


45 

viii. 21 


26 

xvi. 10 

• . 

43 

xvi. 11 

• • 

43 

xviii. 

• • 

46 , 47 

xviii. 1-17 

• • 

4 i 

xix. 

• • 

46 

xxi. 17 


22, 44 

xxii. 11 


43 n 

xxiv. 7 

• • 

22 

xxviii. 12 

• • 

22 

xxxii. 24-30 

• • 

4 i 

Exodus 



iii. 14 

• • 

29 

iv. 22, 23 

• • 

144 

xiv. 21b 

• • 

45 

xv. 3 

• • 

32 

xvii. 14, 16 

• • 

34 

xix. 16-19 • • 

• • 

30 

xix. 21, 22 


35 

XX. 


46 

xx. 3 


63 

xx. 4 

• . 

26, 63 

xx. 5 

• • 

63 

XX. 18 

• • 

30 

xx. 23 

• • 

63 

xxi. 6 

• • 

28 

xxii. 8, 9 

• • 

28 

xxii. 23, 24 


46 

xxii. 25-27 .. 

• • 

46 

xxiii. 

• • 

46 

xxiii. 1-9 

• • 

46 

xxiii. 7 


46 

xxiii. 22b 

• • 

34 

xxxiii. 11 

• • 

42 

xxxiii. 18, 19 

• • 

135 

xxxiv. 5-7 .. 

0 0 

136 

xxxiv. 23 

0 0 

26 


Leviticus 
iii. 16-17 

0 0 

0 0 

PAGE 

25 

xvii.-xxvi. 

0 0 

0 0 

13 , 96 

xix. 18 

0 0 

0 0 

97 

xix. 34 

0 0 

0 0 

98 

Numbers 

x. 35 , 36 

0 0 


31 

xi. 12 

0 0 

0 0 

145 

xiv. 42 


0 0 

31 

xiv. 42-45 

0 0 

0 0 

32 

xxi. 14 

0 0 

0 0 

32 

Deuteronomy 

i- 3 i 

0 0 

0 0 

145 

iv. 7 

0 0 

0 0 

56 

iv. 15, 16 

0 0 


64 

iv. 35 

0 0 

0 0 

56 

iv. 37 

0 0 

0 0 

133 

iv. 39 

0 0 

0 0 

56 

vi. 4 

0 0 


5 i 

vii. 10, 16 

0 0 

0 0 

148 

viii. 2, 3, 5, 

6 

0 0 

ioon 

x. 17 

0 0 

0 0 

56 

xii. 1-18 

0 0 


5 i 

xiii. 12-17 


0 0 

148 

xvi. 5, 6 

0 0 


5 i 

xvi. 19, 20 

0 0 

0 0 

97 

xx. 10-18 

0 0 

0 0 

148 

xxii. 4 


0 0 

97 

xxiv. 14 

• • 


97 

xxiv. 16 

.. 

0 0 

109 

xxiv. 19 


0 0 

97 

xxviii. 1-27 


0 0 

107 

xxviii. 63 

• • 

0 0 

137 

xxx. 11-14 

• • 

0 0 

99 

xxxii. 4 

0 0 

0 0 

100 

xxxii. 6 

0 0 

. .146, 147 

xxxii. 9-11 


• • 

137 

xxxii. 37 

0 0 

• • 

26 

xxxiii. 2 

0 0 

• • 

2on 

xxxiii. 10 

0 0 

• • 

26 


159 












i6o 


INDEX 


Joshua 
iv. 11-13 


• • 

PAGE 

31 

vi. 1-11 


• • 

32 

vii. 24 


• • 

i09n 

x. 14 


• • 

32 

xi. 20 


• • 

34 

Judges 

1. 17 


• • 

32 

vi. 4, 5 

• • 

• • 

20, 3on 

viii. 27 

• • 

• • 

27 

xi. 24 

• • 

• • 

39 

xvii. 3 

• » 

• • 

27 

1 Samuel 

ii. 5-8 

• • 

• • 

104 

ii. 10 

• « 

• • 

3 ° 

iv. 1-7 

• • 

• • 

32 

iv. 6 

• • 

• • 

3 i 

vi. 1-11 

• • 

• • 

3 i 

vi. 19, 20 

• • 

• • 

35 

vii. 10 

• • 

• • 

30 

XV. 

• • 

• • 

32 

XV. 3 

• • 

• • 

34 

xix. 13 

• • 

• • 

27 

xx vi. 19 

• • 

• • 

21, 39 

2 Samuel 

vi. 7 


• • 

35 

vi. 12-14 


• • 

3 i 

xi. 11 


• • 

32 

xv. 24 


• • 

32 

xxi. 1-14 


• • 

35 

1 Kings 

viii. 27, 29, 

30b & 48 

80 

xix. 11 

• • 

• • 

30 

2 Kings 

11. 23 

• • 

• • 

35 

iii. 27 

• • 

• • 

39 , 4 8n 

v. 17 

• • 

• • 

21 

xviii. 4 

• • 

• • 

62 

xxiii. 

• • 

• • 

5 i 

Job 

iv. 7 

• • 

• • 

123 

iv. 17 

• • 

• • 

124 

iv. 18 

• • 

• • 

124 

v. 17, 18 

• • 

• • 

124 


Job PAGE 

viii. 20, 21 .. .. 123 

x. 21, 22 .. .. 8211 

xiii. 7, 8, 10 .. 125 

xiv. 7, 10, 12, 14 .. 84 

xvi. 19 . . .. 126 

xix. 6, 7, 22 .. 125 

xix. 25-27 .. ..8511,127 

xxi. 17, 29-34 • • I2 3 

xxxvi. 10, 15 .. 124 

xxxviii. 4, 5, 7, 19, 28, 

41 .. .. 127 

xxxix. 5, 6, 19, 27 .. 127 

xl. 9, 10 .. .. 127 

Psalms 

vi. 4 .. .. 83 

x. 4 .. .. 109 

xi. 4 .. .. 7911 

xvi. 10, 11 .. .. 85 

xvii. 15 .. .. 8511 

xviii. 8-14 .. .. 30 

xviii. 9, 12, 13 .. 23 

xviii. 34 .. .. 32 

xxxiii. 5 .. .. 137 

xxxv. 5 43 n 

xxxv. 24 .. .. 101 

xxxv. 28 .. .. 101 

xxxvi. 6 .. .. 101 

xxxvii. 1 .. .. 114 

xxxvii. 3 .. .. 123 

xxxvii. 4, 6, 9, .. 113 

xxxvii. 8, 10, 12, 17 114 

xxxvii. 10 .. .. 113 

xxxvii. 16 .. 116 

xxxvii. 18, 19 ..117,118 

xxxvii. 23-25 .. 119 

xxxvii. 24 .. .. 113 

xxxvii. 25 . . .. 113 

xxxvii. 44 . . .. 123 

xl. 6f .. .. 74 

xl. 10 .. .. 103 

xlii. .. .. 57 

xlviii. 10 .. .. 101 

xlix. 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17 116 

xlix. 15 .. .. 85, 116 

1. 13 •• •• 25 

li. 15-end .. .. 74 

lxvi. 1-9 .. .. 1490 

lxvii. .. .. J49 



























INDEX 161 


Psalms 


PAGE 

lxviii. 7 


2011 

lxix. 30 


74 

lxxi. 2, 15 


105 

Ixxiii. 


116,117 

lxxiii. 23, 24 


86 

Ixxiii. 24 


85 

lxxvii. 


116 

lxxvii. 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 

11 

116 

lxxvii. 13-15 


117 

lxxviii. 49 


43 n 

lxxxviii. 2-5, 10, 

11 

84 

lxxxix. 1, 2, 14 


104 

lxxxix. 14 


101 

lxxxix. 19-45 


103 

lxxxix. 48 


84 

xci. 11 


43 n 

xcix. 


14911 

c. 


I 49 n 

dii. 6, 10, 14, 17 


105 

ciii. 13 


146 

ciii. 30 


43 n 

civ. 10-end .. 


148 

cxv. 


61 

cxix. 90 


102 

cxxxvi. 


137 

cxxxix. 


80 

cxxxix. 5, 7-10 


81 

cxlii. 


61 

cxliii. 1 


103 

cxlv. 17 


105 

cxlvi. 7-9 


104 

Proverbs 

iii. 12 

• • 

146 

Isaiah 

i. 2 


145 

i. 11 


25 

i. 11-15 


72 

i. 15-17 


95 

v. 4, 7 


100 

v. 7 


95 

v. 20, 23, 25 


95 

x. 5-15 


55 

x. 27-34 


55 

xxv. 8 


89 

xxvi. 19 


89 

xxxvi. 18-20 


54 

xxxvii. 36-38 


54 


Isaiah 

PAGE 

xl. 12-31 

. . 58, 60 

xli. 21-34 

58 

xlii. 1-4, 6 .. 

152 

xlii. 10 

152 

xliii. 6 

146 

xliii. 7, 16 

146 

xliv. 6-23 

58 

xliv. 24-28 .. 

58 

xlv. 1,4 

150 

xlv. 1-25 

58 

xlv. 19-24 

.. 101 

xlvi. 1-13 

58 

xlix. 1, 3, 5, 6 

151 

xlix. 15 

146 

lii. 14 

130 

liii. 

130 

lxiv. 8 

146 

lxvi. 1,2 

79 

lxvi. 13 

146 

Jeremiah 

11. 2, 32 

134 

iii. 16 

.. 32, 66n 

v. 3 

146 

vii. 21, 22 

73 

vii. 31 

47 n 

ix. 24 

101 

xi. 19 

.. 129 

xi. 20 

.. iii 

xii. 1 

.. iii 

xiv. 2—xv. 6 

.. 102 

xix. 5 

47 n 

xxiii. 23, 24 

79 

xxxi. 18-20 

146 

xxxi. 33 

99 n 

Ezekiel 

i. 

77 

i. 1, 13, 22, 26-28 

.. 67, 68 

viii.—xi. 

78 

xi. 14-16 

77 

xvi. 1-8 

134 

xviii. 1-4 

.. no 

xviii. 19, 20 

.. no 

xviii. 26-30 . . 

.. in 

xxxiii. 

.. no 

xxxiii. 11 

.. 104 

xl.—xlviii. 

78 





















i 62 


INDEX 


Daniel 


PAGE 

Amos 

PAGE 

iii. 28 

• • 

43 n 

v. 4, 5 

72 

xii. 2 

* • 

89 

v. 21-42 

71 




v. 24 

95 

Hosea 



v. 25 

73 

i. 2-4 


138 

ix. i 

83 

i. 6 


..139,141 

ix. 1-4 

79 

ii. 


134 

ix. 7, 8 

91 

ii. 2 


139 



ii. 4 


139 

Jonah 


ii. 5, 6 


139 

iii. 3 

153 

ii. 8 


.. 140 

ii. 10 

153 

ii. 14-20 


.. 140 

iv. 11 

153 

ii. 14, 15 


141 



iii. 1 


139 

Micah 


iii. 2 


139 

iv. 13 

32 

iii. 3 


139 

vi. 6 

.. 47n,72 

v. 15 


141 



vi. 1 


142 

Habakkuk 


vi. 4 


142 

i. 4, 12, 13 

iii 

vi. 6 


.. 72,142 

iii. 3 

2on 

vii. 15 


145 



viii. 4-6 


63n 

Zechariah 

• • 

xi. 


..100,142 

i. 11 

43 n 

xi. 1, 3 


145 

Malachi 


Amos 



i. 6 

146 

i- 3 

• • 

92 

ii. 10 

..146, 147 

ii. 6 

• • 

95 

ii. 17 

108 

iii. 2 

• • 

. . Q2 

iii. 14, 15 .. 

108 

iv. 4* 5 

• • 

. . 72 

iii. 17, 18 

109 


NEW TESTAMENT : 


Luke xiii. 5 

• • 

112 

Romans viii. 38, 39 .. 

88 

John ix. 1-3 .. 

• • 

112 

Romans ix. 29 

33 

John xii. 28-30 

• • 

30 

Phil. ii. 10 

82n 


INDEX OF OTHER REFERENCES AND QUOTATIONS : 


Encyclopaedia Biblica 

• • 

5 In 

Fairbairn, A. M., 



City of God, p. 1 
Hastings’ Dictionary 

82 

126 

of 


The Bible 11, ioon 

, ioin, 

115 

Kautzsch, Religion 

of 

Israel II., 1, 2 

• • 

3°n 

art. in Hastings’ 


Bible , v. 727a 

• • 

115 


Kirkpatrick, The Psalms , 

p. 52 .. .. 10911 

Moore, G. F., art. Deut¬ 
eronomy in Ency¬ 
clopaedia Biblica .. 5 in 

Rogers, R.W., Cruciform 
Parallels to the Old 
Testament , p. 122.. 82 

Ditto pp. 141,144,153 5 6n 

















INDEX 


163 


PAGE 

Schultz, Old Testament 

Theology, I., p. 303 5811 

Skinner, J., art. in Hast¬ 
ings’ Bible Diction¬ 
ary , IV., 274 . . ioon 

Ditto IV., 278 .. 10m 

Smith, Sir G. Adam, 
Historical Geography of 

the Holy Land , p. 32 40 

Isaiah , II., p. 40 . . 58 

Ditto p. 43, .. 65 

The Twelve Prophets, 

I., p. 104 .. .. 73 

Ditto II., v. 541 .. 153 


PAGE 

Smith, W. Robertson 
Religion of the Semites, 

p. 217, etc. .. 7on 

Ditto pp. 402, 455f 32n 

Strahan, J., Job, p. 314 128 

Ditto p. 345 .. 128 

Taylor Cylinder .. 54n 

Welch, A. C., 

Religion of Israel 
under the Kingdom, 
p. 8 . • • • 39 

Ditto p. 14 .. 45n 




PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY HEADLEY BROTHERS, 
l8, DEVONSHIRE STREET, E.C.2 J AND ASHFORD, KENT. 








































:• % •. 

> 0 A 4, •**> 

^>v* • ‘ " 


iy 0 

• ,C* V & '•. . • ,-v / 

,0^ .•“*♦ ’*o Ji' „■>'•. <*> 

. Tj . G u ♦W% I V ° .-J* 

** 0* - ’’b V 4, 

^ ^ ■.^^*‘ 4 - 0 " 7 * • 'rg'/IW' 

*. V?~ .• _«> <0, -T^t- „0 *•• T^SSOM* 


jP’V ■. 




♦ ■< 


-T- 'o .o*' ^ A*' 1 '*' -• < 



-> -0.* *<'■ 

«r 

*> ' "' • <y 

V V % »••"'* CT' 

••^••••. %y ■•»•. v* 

/\ -i®?.- y~v„ 

< 0 V <> '•». * - A 

fi , -(V . * * * * # O A* o " ' -t - J . 

V C *W25>2* ° ^ 

^ * 

c \Q fc > _ __ 

% v n -a* ^ •% / Tl^SS Sfc vl, o 

,* n o a. 0 , 

* •" -*° % ' v'*.-^>e/'-*V 0 

: ^ ^ 

• A V«* ... 

4 <?y -yM* ^ ^ «j 

-V* V '♦•• « A 1 

** % (/ .•»;*, % > v ..-i*. -<0 

; c 5 0 * : 






"O . . * A 


>°V 



-f- ., 

V VA 


^ V 




vx a - Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 

* QlyS * */, C? Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

<\ ® ^ ^ ^ Troatmant 1. .1.. OAftr 



^ Treatment Date: July 2005 

v** 

? ** ^ PreservationTechnologies 

« A A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

0 « 0 111 Thomson Park Drive 

f 'O A * AjSNk *. Cranberry Township. PA 16066 

* o t 

*>t* A 0 





( 724 ) 779-2111 








A' 


o V 




*bv* : 


L 0 *•••# 





■ %* v • 

,‘ A V ■#* *. k » . 

<>- *» • - 



,0 *'. • °* 


av-* : 
* 4 ? %■ • 







« • * 


°<. **•*' A 0 ' 






* ♦♦ ^ • 


• k 4 _* ♦ **b 


«• • 



^ !• 



. O * • > 



*o# : 



o' . 


V 

* * % O' 

. ^ CT 

o ^ v i S|fP r : 4 >°* - 
^o° %. 


• * • • • *b 


o. *©". * * A 



« • O. 




o * 



.* >° ^ ".' 

' ^‘V \ 

• **. -V^IV- %. <** •’aVa- 

, Vv * r °vPS> - AW^^/Zh. o 

* ** v \ 

*■••• <V tf. ♦. .. 

. *_ ,0* o 0 .-i. 4, ^ ^ 

V * Split//S*2^ - -N 4 




<*. *'TV** ,0 


• 'j' 


**0* 


■5^ 



'. ^0* ^ 
♦ 4 0 • ■ 

i > «. 




; 

^■V . 

3 ^ • 


V 

o jOt*^ 

<** p .. %* T ^ , ‘ *0° \.**••’• ^ .. °* 
v -•--'♦ ^ v y^\ * 



* v. 


y 



• * 


t < * 



> J 

r o/ ; 


•fV-' :p«“. ; 

A <* ♦*TVV I A 0* 

^ # cj^ *„ ^ - • \1? «■ 



o_ ^o . "»• A 




1 y © \ ■ 

* B* 


**’ ^ o. *o f!.*®- > 


^ ro j 



APR 82 


N. MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 46962 



. ^ .4 


k » • « ^o 
.* o 


o_ A 


* • j? . 

r vP V • 

: aV^ - 
;* £ % • 



* oV 


^ « * * A 


% 




* «°° >* 
































































































































































































